May 16th, 2013 by Kezia

Attention sophisticated thinking vegans: meet your new BFF, LAIKA. The recently debuted quarterly magazine has the glossy and stylish look and feel of a popular fashion mag – without the fur, leather, feathers, cosmetic cruelty, Kardashians, and other atrocities typically associated with chic lifestyle magazines. In addition to fashion, beauty, food, art, music, and travel, LAIKA delivers in-depth articles on animal activism, including people who are driven to make a difference.

Longtime activist Julie Gueraseva is LAIKA’s founder, creative and editorial director – its alpha female (though let’s also shout out to her twin and fellow activist, Stacy Gueraseva, whose work appears in the mag). Julie says the magazine as she envisioned it is “a clear assertion that a full, vibrant, exciting, interesting and satisfying life can be had – without ever having to inflict harm on another.” Like.

We spoke with Julie about the magazine and what it means for vegans.

First, congratulations on creating a brand-new title at a time when the media and publishing industry is at best struggling. What do you think the magazine accomplishes for veganism that is potentially different from and greater than other projects and campaigns you’ve been involved in, or that are currently available?

Thank you very much. Something like this is just one technique of many available at our disposal to help animals. This magazine, this whole endeavor, is completely, purely from the heart. It started as an idea, an ‘a-ha’ type of moment. And then it became kind of a ride that I was on, and there was no turning back. So I can’t really compare it to anything else that’s out there, or what’s come before. It’s totally rooted in the present moment, and completely driven by a desire to liberate animals, and to wake people up to compassion. And that’s all I can focus on. There is no other motive behind it.

This magazine is a culmination of all of my experience, I would say, as a designer who’s worked in different industries, observing things along the way; and as an activist and vegan, who’s learned some tactics in the past six years. And just as a human being, walking through life. It could’ve only happened now I think. A few years ago, I wasn’t ready to carry out something like this. But by the time I had art directed and designed multi-page publications from start to finish, I had the confidence to know a magazine like this was doable.

I suppose the magazine looks different, and has a different rhythm to it. It looks like a fashion magazine at first glance. But behind the style, there is much substance, which might catch someone off guard who picks it up who knows nothing about veganism or how animals are treated. It shakes up the traditional format.

LAIKA is ‘selling it’ with style and design, but you’re also covering harder-hitting subjects plus work from established journalists. Was this an intentional mission to expose readers to serious content inside a pretty package?

Yes. It was a strategic move and also an honest one. I wanted to pull people in with a “cool” visual vocabulary. But I also just really like good design, so it was a logical decision also. I was inspired to make a well-designed vegan magazine, with strong photography, illustration, etc. Based on what I’ve observed, a strong presentation does help people to absorb the message better. But yes, knowing what kind of world we function in, I wanted to employ the aesthetics people respond to in propelling a compassion forward. And yes, I did put some thought into the order of things…more fun stuff in the beginning, and then before you realize what’s happening, you’re reading about more serious things. But by that point, you’re already invested.

But what started as a strategy simply turned into a truthful reflection of the spirit of this movement, as I designed the magazine. There is such a sophistication of thought, ideas within this movement; there are so many truly fascinating people, who do interesting things. There’s all this innovation, frontiers being pushed. It’s an incredibly interesting movement. And it’s centered around animals, who themselves are amazing and mysterious, and so worthy of being portrayed in a dignified, intelligent way.

A lot of advertising and marketing out there is about distorting reality, creating a fantasy, exaggerating things, overselling the brand. And I realized nothing about veganism required overselling. I’ve always known the vegan lifestyle is a beautiful way to be. And I suppose if we think of it as a “brand” that we need to “sell” people on, then it deserves to be “packaged” in a compelling, beautiful way, because it is already that.

We are often critical of “capitalist solutions” to animal liberation – by which we mean the belief that if there were just more vegan products on store shelves, or enough vegan options on menus, we’ll bring about a vegan world. How does the magazine play in this intersection of consumerism and activism?

I’m not a big consumer myself. I’m not a fan of having a lot of “stuff.” If you look at the magazine, it’s actually quite light on product. I am most interested in innovation; I admire creativity. So I am definitely fascinated by products that fill a void, that offer an irresistible alternative and a paradigm shift. We need those types of products out there, because they can sometimes be a person’s first introduction to veganism. And those are the types of products I strive to showcase in the magazine.

But I am also incredibly fascinated by the bounty of our Mother Nature and how beautiful and versatile plant foods are before they are even converted to any type of product. So I would actually like to see humanity get to a place when don’t rely on so many products, and when we are able to find contentment in simpler things. I think maybe that would help us become calmer people in general, less stressed out, and more open to tapping into our empathy.

It’s a tricky thing because I can completely relate to the excitement of seeing a new vegan product on a grocery store shelf. But it’s a complicated thing functioning within the capitalist system, which is defined by greed and accumulation of wealth. I think the most important thing is that our hearts remain in the right place. As long as our new product developments are not driven by greed, ego and the pursuit of status, then having more vegan products on the shelves could very well be part of the solution. We just have to be mindful of who we are competing with. It’s not each other, it’s the animal exploitation industry that we are trying to put out of business. This one thing Darius Fullmer said in an interview always stuck with me. It was something like, “We don’t know what the key is that will open the lock to animal liberation, so our best bet is to do what feels right in our heart, that feels the most effective, and hopefully one of us is right.”

Sometimes I notice that when we get too fixated on discussing cool new products, we talk about animals less. So in the pursuit of the most awesome new vegan products, we just have to remember to continue to talk about animals as much as possible and as loudly as possible. Because their situation is still dire and desperate.

Someone picks up a copy of the magazine, and commits themselves to becoming more active for animals. Or maybe they’re motivated to turn their activism into a lifelong career. Give them your best advice.

Well, first and foremost I would recommend spending time with animals. Being around animals is a transformative experience and is a huge catalyst for becoming a passionate advocate in their defense. So I would recommend finding out where your nearest animal sanctuary is, and going there for a long visit. And if you’ve already visited a sanctuary once or twice, make sure you go again and soon. If you’re unable to or don’t have the means to travel, then go to your nearest shelter and volunteer.

Another good first step is to just start taking action — go from talking about it to doing something about it. I think a good place to begin is by utilizing what you already know how to do. For me, as soon as I stopped eating meat, I started thinking about how I could implement my design skills to help animals. And it was actually designing a little brochure for a group called Compassionate Action for Animals that helped me go from vegetarian to vegan fairly quickly. I think applying an existing passion towards your new passion for saving animals really strengthens convictions. I’ve seen it happen time and time again with people.

I’m also a big believer in protests, in being out there in the streets, speaking out for change. I think participating in protests in essential. Protests have impact, and they also offer a chance to feel a part of a community, meet other activists who share your passion, and put forth a united front — which is an amazing and energizing feeling for a new activist. Exploring the vegan community is important. If there’s something like a Vegan Drinks in your town, go check it out. Once I became a vegan, The NYC Vegan Drinks was the place where I met other vegans for the first time. It was amazing to talk to other people who wanted to help animals.

Find out what events are happening in your town, like a Veg Fest, or something like an Animal Rights Conference, or a book signing for a vegan author — and attend. Talk to people who have been doing this for a long time, who can offer you special insight. Seek knowledge. Learn about the animal agriculture industry, about the legislation out there, marketing tactics, how things are made, how leather is produced, the statistics of animal exploitation, nutritional facts…Seek knowledge and truth by any means necessary — whether from other people, books, films, places, the internet. Be an observer, because this will constantly inform your activism and provide you with ideas on how to solve problems. The animal exploitation industry is a massive problem, but we can solve it. I truly believe we will find the solution.

And if you’ve decided to dedicate your life to helping animals, then follow your inner compass and let it guide to where you feel you’d be most effective — whether being a campaign manager for a nonprofit, running a vegan blog, writing about animal rights, rescuing animals, caring for them at a sanctuary, and so forth. And then seek out opportunities, or get inventive and create your own.

What can people look forward to in future issues?

Page count is increasing, with an even greater diversity of stories. The next issue will have a theme, and that will be the plan for all following issues. The approach will always be to remain uncompromising. The content won’t shy away from serious, difficult topics, but the magazine is also committed to showcasing the full range of a compassionate lifestyle, which includes plenty of fun things. We are going to put the spotlight on cool things and people that are still under the radar, while presenting more well-known things and people in an unexpected light. In the next issue, we profile really incredible people — some who are about to break out in a major way, and some who have already left a mark. We have a photo essay with comments from a veteran photographer on the lives of animals in captivity. We’ll be showcasing innovative food and the people who create that food. The goal is to be original, experimental and inspiring. The purpose of the magazine is to show the beauty of a vegan lifestyle in a truthful way, and really do it justice.

What’s not changing is we will always prominently and honestly feature the lives of animals, whether they are free or still in trapped in the animal exploitation matrix.

As of this week, the magazine has achieved a huge milestone for a new title: mainstream distribution! Dozens and dozens of newsstands have agreed to carry LAIKA – right alongside magazines like Women’s Health and Maxim – and more distribution points are being added daily. Can’t wait? Get it delivered right to your mailbox or your inbox, or view online content at http://laikamagazine.com.

P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laika. You’re welcome.

activist, capitalism, communication, media, vegan

May 3rd, 2013 by Gary Smith

On April 20, a group of activists from Fermare Green Hill campaign entered a pharmacology lab at the University of Milano, Italy. Very quickly, news spread on social media. If you were like me, you spent the day reading updates on their Facebook page, waiting to see what would happen to the activists, would they be able to free any of the animals, what would their fates be? While five activists were inside the lab, a large protest took place outside.

They occupied the fourth floor and eventually left the lab with over 300 hundred animals. The entire action took place over nine hours. While inside, they were able to look at documents from the vivisectors and were able to show the world the inside of a vivisection lab.

I am excited and honored to be able to share with you an interview I conducted with a representative from the group.

Why did you decide to target a vivisection lab? Did you intend to leave the lab with animals?

We have been campaigning against vivisection for years. We have been fighting against Green Hill beagle breeders, and thanks to our campaign have seen a growth of interest on the issue of vivisection, not only among animal rights people, but among common people, the media, politicians and society as a whole. The abuse of animals in labs has become a serious issue. But still we thought there was a need to do something strong and show what a lab is like, what happens to animals, and try to smash the secrecy surrounding these experiments.

One of our main issues now is to have a public register of all experiments going on in the country, which seems like a really democratic request, but is seen by researchers as a real problem. Secrecy is something vivisectors are fighting hard to maintain. Smashing this secrecy was actually the main reason for the action. Leaving with the animals at the end of the day was of course an option and our request, but we actually never thought it could really end up like this.

Why did you choose to go into the lab in the light of day, exposing yourselves, rather than a more clandestine action? Were you concerned about the legal ramifications?

The main goal of the action was a public stunt to get attention and to open up a debate. To save the animals and get out is a completely different kind of action. We have nothing against these kinds of direct actions, of course, but our group is involved in public protests and this was what we would call a civil disobedience action, where we decided to barricade ourselves in the lab, with the animals, showing our faces and openly talking with the media.

Of course we were aware of legal problems coming from this action, like with all civil disobedience, but we are ready to face anything if this can really be a spark for some change in vivisection labs and the relationships that humans have with animals in general.

What did you find in the lab? Can you describe the emotions you felt being inside of a lab where animals are being brutalized?

There was a room with 18 rabbits, some of them in their cages since 2008 or 2009. They were really scared, some of them had lots of rotten feces in their cages. The one we rescued was full of fleas and mites, which contrasts a lot with the idea of a sterile lab environment.

There were many rooms full of racks with mice cages. The animals in there were trying to escape, some of them were jumping the entire time, banging their heads on the metal ceiling of the cage. Imprisonment made them crazy.

What was more interesting is we found documents of all experiments over the last years. Reading and taking pictures of them we found out what was going on in this lab and the reasons for the death of all these animals. Contrary to what the researchers say, many of the experiments carried out were not to cure serious illnesses and to save people. Many experiments were conducted on nicotine, THC or obesity, for example.

To be there has been a difficult trauma to deal with. The idea to leave these animals there was really difficult to face, and everything was set up to save all of them or at least most of them. This emotion was really strong also among the crowd supporting the action outside of the building, where about 500 people had spent the entire day.

Can you give us an update on where the animals that you saved from the Milano Lab are at this point? Do you expect the lab to turn over the remainder of animals that they agreed to?

The rescued rabbit is now living at the home of  a friend of ours. After five years in his tiny cage, he now has a whole home and a caring person with him, and he has a name, he is no longer a number.

Most of the 300 mice already found homes through an organization called VitaDaCani, where some of us also volunteer. We personally took care of them and met most of the people these lovely animals will live with. It was fantastic to see them change their life from a small barren cage to much bigger environments full of stuff to do and proper savory food instead of those pellets they get in labs. Mice are incredible animals and we advise anybody to try and get to know them.

VitaDaCani is in touch with the University, and in the following days all the remaining animals should be released, as the reasearchers think they are now contaminated and useless. To them they are only products, things, but to us they are individuals, lives to be saved.

Did the action garner media attention in Italy as well as throughout Europe? If so, what was the tenor of the coverage? Did the coverage surprise you at all?

There was big coverage in Italian media, as expected. Actually they are still talking about it after ten days. At the beginning there were our words on the media, the images of the animals in labs and of our actions. Then the scientific community united and got a lot of coverage as well with their mantra “animal research saves lives and there is no alternative.” We responded again and asked for an open debate at the University, something that will probably take place in a few weeks, involving the ethical and scientific aspects of animal research.

Overall there have been many bad articles on the issue, but it’s still good when you see vivisectors so desperate to tell their blatant lies everywhere, and some of these lies are easily recognizable as such. They said to all media the mice would all die within 24 hours out of the lab environment, while only three died in the last ten days. So we are now collecting pictures with them to tell the real story of their new lives.

What suprised us was the action was covered also outside of Italy, even outside of Europe. We have been attacked by the global research community and received a lot of hate mail, text messages, phone calls and a full front attack on our facebook page with hundreds of them commenting and insulting us. This reaction makes us think we are really hitting some nerves.

In the US, we have designer laws like AETA as well as new laws called ag-gag that criminalize behaviors of animal rights activists and liberationists. Do you have similar laws in Italy? How does the public perceive animal rights activists?

We do not have specific laws against animal rights activity yet, but Italy has strong laws against terrorism, created in the ‘70s when class war was really strong and there were many armed guerrilla groups. They actually have difficulties applying these laws to other kinds of groups, like ours, so we feel a bit safe at the moment. A couple of years ago a politician proposed a law targeting animal rights actions at fur farms with a terrorism enhancement, but this politician was arrested for corruption, so that was the end of the first specific law against AR activities.

The public received our action quite well. Even the illegal liberation of 70 beagles at Green Hill has been largely applauded and perceived as the right thing to do. I think it really made a difference that the action was done as an open act of disobedience, with no masked activists and no real scuffles with the police. People perceived it as a “Robin Hood” kind of thing. So I guess it’s important to analyze how the movement is sometimes comunicating with the public and society, and how it is portraying itself. That liberation shows that even direct action can have large support and we are sure some underground actions can have big support if commuication is done in the right way.

It appears like you have a large animal rights community in Italy. What are you guys doing right to bring so many people out to actions? Any advice you can share?

In Italy there has always been a really huge animal welfare movement and a big portion of Italians are so-called animal lovers. There has always been a separately active grassroots community with their campaigns, and so on. What the Green Hill campaign did was to unite these two fronts and let the animal lovers become activists and the welfarists become more “militant.” We worked on an issue everyone could have something to do for, and created a front that was a real mix of people. Sometimes this was not easy at all to handle, since we had incredibly huge demos with thousands of people at their first demo ever, trying to do whatever they wanted and with no idea of our politics, sometimes attacking us for our decisions (not accepting right-wing people at our demos for example). But beside these side effects, we are sure the strength of this campaign came from this powerful mix and a well studied use of communication and the media.

How did this action compare with the Green Hill liberation? Have all of the beagles found adoptive homes?

All the beagles rescued in July have found homes in about three months. It was a huge job and many organizations worked on it. We actually worked on rehoming about 550 dogs ourselves.

Our latest action on April 20^th is just a follow-up to the Green Hill campaign and liberation of all beagles. We want to show that this breeder was just the tip of the iceberg, as we say, and there are 600 labs using animals in this country. We want to show that people are still fighting hard to stop vivisection, whatever it may take.

Do you have a message or advice for activists that you’d like to share?

We remember the first time we went to check Green Hill a few years ago. It was scary. Such a big place, with five sheds full of barking dogs, hundreds of them going to labs every month. It was heartbreaking and felt like an impossible task to close this place or even save one dog from there. We had this dream anyway, and we worked hard on it. And in the end we got what we wanted, and much more we can say.

This is our message: always follow your dreams and always fight for them to become true. This can make such a difference to animals.

animal rights, animal testing, Contro Green Hill, Italy, vegan, vivisection

April 13th, 2013 by Gary Smith

Kind is a new book of poetry by Gretchen Primack, who co-authored The Lucky Ones with Jenny Brown, released last year. Kind is filled with thoughtful, poignant and touching poems about how we treat and mistreat animals. Gretchen’s poetry is straightforward, and makes one think about their role in either oppressing or advocating for nonhumans.

Though I am generally not a fan of poetry, Gretchen’s poems touched me deeply. I can’t recommend Kind enough. Make sure you pick up a copy for yourself or someone who is ready to be inspired to make great change. You can pick up a copy of the book here: http://gretchenprimack.com/books 

Before we get to the interview, Gretchen was ‘kind’ enough to allow me to reprint one of my favorite poems from the book.

Love This

If you permit

this evil, what is the good

of the good of your life?

—Stanley Kunitz

The body floods with chemicals saying, Love this,
and she does, and births it; it is a boy
she begins to clean and nose, but he is dragged
away by his back feet. She will never touch him
again, though she hears him howl and calls back
for days.

Her breast milk is banked for others. Her son
is pulled away to lie in his box.
He will be packed for slaughter. How ingenious
we are! To make product from byproduct.
To make use of the child,
kill and pack and truck him to plates.

And when the gallons slow, we start over,
and her body says, Love this! And she does,
though in a moment she will never touch
him again. His milk is not for him.

And when the milk slows too slow,
she will join him on the line, pounds
of ground. And how we will dine!
And talk of our glossy dogs! And her body
will break up on our forks, as mothers
beg us for the grain we stuffed her with,
and children beg us for the water
scouring her blood from the factory walls.

And when her wastes and gases and panic
heat our air so hot our world stops
breathing-then will we stop? Then
will we grow kind, let the air cool
and mothers breathe?

How did you come up with the title “Kind” for the book?

This is a book about kindness—our inattention to it, our consciousness of it. But it’s also a book about kinds, the distinctions—artificial ones—we make between this kind of animal and that: humans versus all others, dogs versus pigs, and so on. That double meaning appealed to me as a title right away; this was the easiest-to-title work I’ve ever done!

Animals have always found their way into poetry and literature. Most of the time, they are not being advocated for. Why did you choose to use poetry as a way of advocating for nonhuman animals?

I think we all respond to different media when it comes to making change. Someone might come to a different consciousness through watching a documentary, someone else through reading a pamphlet, someone else through visual art. Poetry has also been a vehicle for change. Think of Adrienne Rich’s work, or Audre Lorde’s, or Wilfred Owen’s excoriations of World War I. Why not also lend poetic voice to the struggle of nonhuman animals? Then there’s simply this: Poetry is the medium I gravitate towards. I’ve written essays and articles, and I co-wrote Jenny Brown’s memoir The Lucky Ones: My Passionate Fight for Farmed Animals, and I love those projects. But when it comes to pure literary expression, my first choice is poetry.

Has your poetry always addressed animal exploitation or is this a new avenue for you?

I worked on this book on and off for about five years, but before that I didn’t touch the subject. I had a turning point when I found myself in a month-long artist residency with a group of people who felt nothing for nonhuman animals. The alienation propelled me to begin Kind—so I guess there was an upside to that loneliness and frustration.

What do you hope readers will take away from “Kind?”

I’d like the book to provide different things for different readers. For those already involved in animal advocacy, I’d like it to provide recognition, consolation, and a feeling that you’re not alone. For those who have flirted with making change but haven’t quite gotten there, I’d like to provide inspiration to take next steps. For those who are sensitive to issues of social justice but haven’t considered animal issues, I’d like the book to start them in that direction. And for all readers, I’d like the book to do what good poetry should do: Make us think about the possibilities of language, of art, of taking a step back and looking at the world a different way. And I’d like it to be a pleasure to read!

When did you go vegan and how did you come to that decision?

I went vegetarian when I was thirteen: I was an animal lover, so how could I eat animals? It was pretty simple even though I didn’t know other vegetarians. But my eyes weren’t opened to the issues inherent to dairy and eggs and the like until much later—I was in my 30s. I’d moved to the Hudson Valley and was introduced to the work of farm animal sanctuaries and the vegans involved with them. Well, that was it. My mind was blown.

As an artist, you must have to live with your heart open. How do you deal with all of the cruelty and suffering against animals and how do you heal yourself?

The activism and the art soothe me in the midst of the horrors. I feel worst when I’m not doing anything about it, so it feels good to roll my sleeves up. Still, I make sure to lead a full, indulgent life and take care of myself. Delicious meals, travel, mindless entertainment, crass humor, lots of snuggle time with rescued animals, and high-quality time with fabulous humans—like my husband, Gus—keep me sane.

If you’re in the New York City area, come hear her read from Kind at the Jivamukti Studio on April 28 and Kleinert/James Gallery on May 11.

Gretchen Primack, Kind, poet, poetry, vegan

March 23rd, 2013 by Gary Smith

Last year I sent Jewish media a pitch about our second vegan Passover seder. My hope was that I would be able to get some attention for ethical veganism around the holiday. Our veder made it in an article in The Jewish Journal and they also asked me to write an article for them.

I decided to send a pitch this year, and received quite a lot of responses. I was interviewed for a blog based in Vienna called Living Jewish (hope you read German) and by a journalist from a London-based publication called The Jewish Chronicle. So many opportunities to contribute articles came in that I had to pass up a few.

After writing three articles, I realized that I would be unable to say the same thing differently two more times. Here are my three articles all in one place. Please feel free to share them with friends and family.

Tikkun Daily

Modern Magazine

The Voice of Jewish Washington

It’s an honor to represent ethical veganism to an audience that is ostensibly receptive to concepts like exploitation and enslavement. I encourage other activists to look for similar opportunities to express their ethical and spiritual values around major holidays. (Plus, the food is great.)

Jewish, Judaism, Passover, Passover seder, vegan, vegan recipes

November 2nd, 2012 by Gary Smith

269, animal rights, tattoo, vegan

October 22nd, 2012 by Gary Smith

In part one of this series, I spoke with a representative of the group 269 about their action on World Farm Animals Day, where they were branded with a hot iron with the number of an anonymous calf in an Israeli factory farm.

I was curious about how the group regarded the animal rights movement in Israel and the rest of the world, what tactics and strategies they felt were successful and which are not. What followed was a commentary that was more in-depth than could be digested in a single interview.

I am presenting this provocative and thoughtful response in its entirety, however, many readers will find it unpalatable and even antagonistic towards animal activists. Although it should go without saying, please note that the opinions shared are 269’s and not necessarily this blog’s or my own.

I’m very pessimistic about the chances of the animal rights movement to succeed. If you take into consideration just some of the parameters of the animal rights struggle’s condition and its enemy (almost all of the human race), you have to be pessimistic:

People are inherently selfish. The number of animals who are abused and killed is infinite. The Animal Holocaust occurs worldwide, in every culture, in every country. There are seven billion people in the world right now. Over the next few decades, this number will rise to around nine billion. 80 percent of the population is from undeveloped countries; in a few more decades this will rise to 87 percent. These populations are not open at all to the animal rights idea. Even the other 20 percent aren’t open to the idea, save a minimal percentage of them. 97 out of every 100 new people on the planet are currently born in developing countries. The life expectancy in undeveloped countries will rise in the future and their mortality rates will fall. Many undeveloped countries will be industrialized in the next few decades, which means The Animal Holocaust is going to double or triple itself in numbers.
If we judge reality with our open, objective eyes, we come to the conclusion that the situation is worse than ever. We cannot win, especially not with the path we are taking. I’m not familiar with every detail of the animal rights movement in the rest of the world, besides a few similar parameters every animal rights activist I’ve talked to has told me, and that is that the vegan community in their country is very small, there are too few activists in general from the vegan community, and that most of the activists are speciesists, who prefer humans over animals.

In order to win the animal rights struggle, we need people who will fight, and we need to be stronger than the criminals. As of today, we cannot force animal rights on the human population. There are too little of us, with too little money, and too much of them, with too many advanced technologies. So we need to convince them one way or the other to stop animal exploitation. But, we all know that we cannot convince seven billion people to stop enslaving animals out of their kindness, so in that front – we cannot win.

What we do have is just a bunch of people around the world, not too many, who care for animals, and need to think what can they do. Increasing awareness is no more than a nice way to expand this small circle, but it is sure not a solution to The Animal Holocaust. So we have to think outside the box, in order to beat the vicious enemy.

There are some examples of creative thinking that can lead to a better change in the animals’ condition. Some of them solve it from the root. Some of them can solve it quickly. Some of these ideas are illegal so I won’t write about them here (I’m not talking about ALF of course, it’s not a root solution and surely not a quick one. You can’t liberate 150 billion animals each year worldwide). Some of them are legal and we all should consider them.

For example: acting against human reproduction. It can be even more essential than convincing another meat eater to become vegan. It can also be very effective in underdeveloped countries.
Another way is promoting artificial meat research. I truly agree with David Pearce who said, “In vitro meat [is] perhaps our best hope of getting rid of factory farming everywhere by the middle of the century…I’d much rather everyone listened the moral argument and became vegan today. But we both know how hard it is to argue against moral apathy.”

These are just two examples in the legal pathway. My point is that anyone can find a much better way to achieve animal liberation earlier than by continuing in the failing way of approaching peoples’ kindness. If you appeal only to peoples’ kindness with ethical arguments, you won’t be able to convince many people to become vegan. Every animal rights group around the world includes arguments and campaigns about health, ecology, etc. in addition to the ethical arguments. So actually, by their actions, every animal rights group around the world agrees with me, whether they have the courage to admit it or not. I wouldn’t have a problem with making the world vegan by health reasons if it would succeed, but people don’t care about health, not in numbers that would make 95 percent of the world vegan, and not even 30 percent, but only a few percentage points at all, and only after a certain age (adults care more about health than teenagers).

So by reducing the power of our message from the ethical argument only, to ethical and health and ecology and any other selfish reason, there are two things that happen. One, more people become vegan for reasons other than ethics (selfish reasons). Two, the animal rights movement grows, but the concentration of non-speciesist, committed vegans falls. And that is a procedure that feeds itself, because more speciesist vegans, means more health/ecology campaigns from the animal rights movement, more speciesist people attracted to it, and so on.

The problem with that is what happens here in Israel (and I’m sure all around the world also): many of them stop being vegan after a few years. The ones who stay vegan, are very speciesist and selfish, so they don’t act much and/or won’t care to go far for animal rights even with effective ideas and/or won’t spend time thinking of revolutionary ideas etc. So what we have is an animal rights movement that has reduced its radical message to get the support of more people, but has become so soft and sterile that they are not a meaningful tool in the animal liberation fight. This is what happens when you think short term and not long term; when you are eager to get a few more vegans at any cost.

We are now just in the middle of this evolution of the movement, but as I see it, in the next few decades, the movement in Israel and in some other places (I don’t want to say everywhere as I’m not familiar with what’s going on all around the world will just be a lifestyle movement, very soft, just dealing with themselves and recipes, and here and there tries to convert meat eaters to become vegan, but surely not a revolutionary movement that will be able to make animal liberation happen. Also, if a revolutionary idea for animal liberation comes up, but it contradicts humans’ health for example, this idea won’t be executed by the animal rights movement because it contains too many selfish activists who feel that health of humans is more important for them than animal liberation (examples of this have already happened in Israel and all around the world). So one part of the speciesist activists in our movement are just ordinary people, who became vegan, but from selfish reasons not ethical ones – and they won’t be the key for ending The Animal Holocaust.

A speciesist movement in my opinion will not be able to stop the animal holocaust. If a great idea to liberate animals comes at the expense of humans, those activists won’t execute it. Speciesist people won’t try their best to liberate animals, not by time or money investment, and especially not by hardcore actions that can be effective. That is why it is an important mission for every one of us to try as much as possible to radicalize the animal rights movement, even if the cost is that some activists will be kicked out. Otherwise, we’ll get a kind of a movement that is itself the final verdict to animal liberation. For my opinion it is too late, but I hope I’m wrong.

We cannot liberate animals by appealing to people’s kindness. We cannot liberate animals by appealing to people’s interest in health/ecology. Although we’ll get some more vegans, but surely not significantly more, and the price for that will be ruining the animal rights movement ideology. That is very dangerous, because the only chance for eliminating the animal holocaust is by having a strong ideology-movement that will produce committed activists that will try to end the holocaust in some other ways than propaganda (that will not end the animal holocaust for sure).
The other part of the speciesist activists in our movement are the activists who also take part in human rights actions. This is a problematic and very crucial issue that I don’t want to get into too much because it is another whole interview, but I have to mention it. It’s unacceptable for anyone who consider themselves a non-speciesist vegan person to promote human rights. Can anyone imagine a partisan who fights at noon to liberate Jews from concentration camps held by Nazis, and at night to make conditions for the Nazis better? It’s a contradiction. We, as people who are committed to justice, cannot ignore that contradiction. We need to understand that theoretically, animals deserve rights just as humans deserve rights. Theoretically we are all equal in the moral status, but in reality, human rights come at the expense of animal rights. It’s a fact. As the socio-economic situation of people improves, more animals are abused and murdered. As more countries become free and developed, the more we’ll see industrialized animal agriculture. We mustn’t ignore this paradox. We need to comprehend that humans are the animals’ criminals. Theoretically, all humans deserve rights, but in reality, rapists’ rights come on the expense of women’s rights. We need to choose sides, the animals or the humans – we can’t choose both. Do we want to be on the victims’ side or on the criminals’ side?
This is one reason why we should invest all our time in promoting animal rights, and not be active for people.

The second reason why we should dedicate all of our time to the animal rights struggle is just by taking into consideration some facts. The amount of animals being exploited and murdered each year by humans is about 100,000-1,000,000 times (!) more than the numbers of humans who endure it. The suffering animals go through has no similarity to the human suffering (vivisection, animal agriculture, premarin from horses, gallbladder/bile from bears, hunting, clothing, etc.). The animal rights movement has much less money than the human rights movement and fewer activists than the human rights movement. The media deals with different human issues all day, every day. Humans can fight for themselves, animals can’t.

So after looking at just some of these parameters, combined with the fact that most people are responsible for the animal holocaust, I think it is obvious why every animal rights activist who fights also for human rights is a speciesist, and is making The Animal Holocaust worse.

I think that a simple example will demonstrate it best. Let’s imagine we are walking on a street and we notice 100 people injured. One of them is on the sidewalk, and he is white, and his injury is a cut in his leg because he slipped while he ran. The cut isn’t so deep, no danger of death, but he is bleeding. Also, there are 20 pedestrians near him helping him to cure.

Right next to him, there are 99 black men, lying on the road, injured because of a bus explosion that was caused by the white man above. They are dying, bleeding, screaming from pain, and only one person is trying to help them. What would you do? My answer is simple, if you’d go to help the single white person on the sidewalk, who has so much help, he is only one person, his injury is not severe, and he is the criminal who is responsible for the 99 people’s suffering – you are either a racist or a very, very stupid man. Let’s say, that no one is that stupid, so there is only one conclusion. Let’s replace in this allegory the blacks with animals and the white with the human population – and this is why animal rights activists who are also active for human rights are speciesists.

I know that now, some readers will give many excuses to justify why it is ok to waste time and money to help humans, and as I said before I don’t want to get to every aspect of it, but I still want to answer one popular argument about that, and it’s “but if we help people and better their conditions, they will be more open to the animal rights idea.”

Again, people are inherently selfish. They always feel like victims. They always want more than they have. We are programmed that way. Helping humans won’t make them be more compassionate for animals, so let’s save the time and help directly to animals, that way we cannot lose.

If this logic was true, all the rich people would be vegans, as they have very good socio-economic status, and we would see many countries that are not occupied and not in a war becoming vegan. But the fact is that we cannot find any vegan country in the world. Not even 50 percent, not even 10 percent. Moreover, we don’t even find such a big difference between different countries; it’s always about zero to two percent vegans, even though we’ve had propaganda campaigns for many decades worldwide. The point is, that even if we make the conditions the best possible, maybe we’ll get some more vegans, but surely not in significant numbers that justify fighting for it vicariously by helping people, and spending so much time and money on it. In my opinion, there is a five percent limit that no country will ever cross (especially not for ethical reasons), and for sure hasn’t been crossed yet.

We shouldn’t forget the big implication fighting for human rights causes. When we fight for human rights, and make countries more developed, and giving people better socio-economic conditions, we might get a few more percentage points open to the animal rights idea, but we sure also get industrialization, and more economic options for people that increase the amount of suffering of animals, and the numbers that are being produced and being murdered increase. So in total, more animals will suffer, because it is more relevant how many people are meat-eaters, not how many people are vegans (like if we want to calculate women’s conditions, we need to know how many people are raping, and not how many people aren’t).

The problem as I see it is that we have a speciesist movement that will become even worse as time goes by, and will have less and less real influence on ending the animal holocaust. I hope that this branding action we’ve done, will make activists in the animal rights movement think, and to try and look at the whole picture, and take into consideration all the parameters, and become more committed to the animal rights struggle. After many years in the animal rights movement, I’m not optimistic, but it’s not me who said that the difference between pessimistic and optimistic is that a pessimist is an experienced optimist.

So to sum it up, I want to say that we have to realize that we cannot end the animal holocaust by ethical propaganda (about 95-99 percent of the human population doesn’t care about animals), we cannot end the animal holocaust by health/ecology propaganda (most of the human race doesn’t care about it either, and it will ruin the animal rights movement), we cannot end the animal rights holocaust by forcing animal rights on the human population (as we are weaker than the enemy), and we cannot end the animal holocaust by ALF (as we cannot liberate 150 billion animals each year worldwide).

Also, we have to be aware to the reason that the animal holocaust is happening, and it’s not education (we are being educated since day one to help others, not to abuse animals, to be kind etc.), not our message, not lack of awareness, and nothing else but the simple horrible truth – we are facing about 7 billion selfish, careless people. Most of the human race doesn’t care and will never care for animals, no matter how many videos we will show them, and no matter how many times we will repeat that meat is murder. If we don’t comprehend that, we’ll not be able to end the animal holocaust. Ever.

Paul McCartney’s sentence is preposterous. The slaughterhouses ALREADY HAVE GLASS WALLS! People know that meat is a dead animal’s part. People, in the majority, know how animals get killed (throat slit), and the internet is full of videos and pictures shot at factory farms for anyone to see. So the slaughterhouses already have glass walls, and not everyone is a vegetarian – not even close.

So what can people do?
1. Become activists. Being vegan in this sick world, with this infinite holocaust, is just not enough. It is much more crucial to be an animal rights activist.

2. Be active as much as you can. We must dedicate most of our lives to the animal rights fight (and only to it), as there are too little of us, and too many enemies.

3. Understand that people don’t care about animals and that increasing awareness is not a tool for ending the animal holocaust, it is only to enlarge the small circle of committed animal rights activists. Therefore, we should only do ethics-based campaigns, without dealing with any selfish issues like health/ecology. We mustn’t reduce the power of our message just to earn another moderate, selfish vegan, as the importance of propaganda is to increase our small, non-speciesist circle. We have to radicalize our movement, even if brings less activists to it in the near future, they will be more qualitative and effective.

4. If you continue in the increasing awareness path, try and do campaigns like 269, with hardcore, radical actions, and deal only with the ethics of animal rights.

5. To realize that the sentence “Think globally, act locally” is very problematic, and indicates very closed thinking. We should “Think globally, act globally.” Make actions that have the potential to spread worldwide, with the investment of little money, time and activists have the potential to go worldwide. We lack resources, so we have to be very calculated. Every action must have the potential to be viewed by people in every country in the world. We have to be as efficient as possible to maximize our time and money, as they are limited.

6. Try to organize meetings only with non-speciesist, committed animal rights activists, and think about the big picture. Take into consideration all the parameters that we mention here, and try to think of creative (legal or illegal) solutions that can lead to end the animal holocaust, or maybe parts of it – forever.

7. Join the non-conventional paths I’ve talked about, like promoting artificial meat research, acting against human reproduction etc. I’m not sure we’ll be able to end the animal holocaust, it might be a lost cause, but for sure if we do have a chance, it’s only in the non-conventional ways.

269, animal rights, Holocaust, vegan

October 16th, 2012 by Gary Smith

I saw a video come through my feed a few days after World Farm Animals Day. I don’t generally click on videos, but the words “branded by hot steel” in the title intrigued me. I was immediately mesmerized by what I saw. There was a man with a numbered tag on his ear, similar to the tags I’ve seen on cows. This was followed by three men sitting in a barbed wire cage.

Three men wearing all black entered the frame. When they whipped out a blow torch, I started to get nervous. Were they really going to brand themselves? And why? Why would someone permanently mark themselves and in such a violent and painful manner? I had to click onto the 269 website. After learning a bit about who they are and why they put themselves through this pain, I had to reach out and interview them.

The interview below is part one of a two-part series with a representative of 269. This interview focuses more on 269 – the why and what. The second part will be more controversial, focusing more on philosophy of the animal rights movement.

I was asked by the representative to mention that some of the interview may not be pleasant, but he and his friends in 269 are “only committed to the animals and we believe that we must say the truth about the struggle for animal rights even if it is hard to hear, otherwise we cannot progress in our fight.”

What is the significance of the name of your group, 269?

269 is a group of animal rights activists who started a campaign and has a website and a facebook page. To quote one of the activists who got branded, “The Number 269, which was burned on our skin, was the designated number of a calf we encountered in one of Israel’s factory farms. This anonymous calf will be forever immortalized on our bodies, and hopefully this message of solidarity will somehow bring a new way of looking at non-human animals. No animal should be exploited to satisfy the selfish needs and whimsical desires of humans, and that is why we chose to use the industry’s own method of objectifying living beings as this symbolic means to convey our idea”.

The video of three of your members being branded on World Farm Animals Day is pretty provocative. Why have you chosen branding as a mode of getting the message out?

The main reason we did this kind of demonstration is that the animal rights movement cannot continue in its conventional, soft way. When we examine the animal rights movement’s accomplishments through history, we realize they are too little and too late. We can’t wait any longer because every second means horrific exploitation and murder of many innocent animals. We need to act more, act harder, better and to start making waves in the world. The Holocaust cannot continue while we sit and smile at the people causing it. This horrible situation requires a more creative and faster solution than delivering another pamphlet to a pedestrian, liking another Facebook page, or joining another animal rights parade.
This demonstration is an example of trying to make a wave, worldwide. But it’s far from enough.
This demonstration is also an example for a global action, not local one. The Animal Holocaust is enormous, and in every country and every culture. We must start to think and act globally, and not locally – otherwise, nothing will ever change. We have to be as efficient as possible. We must do everything we can for the animals.

How was the crowd’s reaction to the branding and what it represents? Did they make the connection? Were they receptive or were they repulsed and angered?

The truth is that we decided to do the demo in a non-crowded place, because the branding procedure is pretty sensitive, and many things could have gone wrong and the whole demo would be ruined, especially since we have no experience in branding. So there wasn’t that much of a crowd there. From what I did notice, the people who walked by stopped, and were pretty shocked.

The branding video has close to 150,000 views in one week. Did you expect the video to get so much attention?

Actually, we did. We believed it could make a worldwide shock-wave, and we think that this video will rise up much more in the next few months. Our aim is for at least ten million viewers this year, that’s the potential we believe it has and we hope to fulfill it. We believe it’ll get much more media coverage than it has got until today – 10 days after the event. We also hope to get some money from our online shop that we opened in order to finance advertisements of this campaign, so that the videos and the follow-up events will be known all around the world. We are aiming to reach as many people as possible, and fast.

What kind of responses have you received from the video? Have you received feedback from people saying that they plan on going vegan?

Well, first I have to say that there were too many responses on Youtube so we didn’t go through every one. But in general the comments were divided in two: “Great demo, I support you” or “You are fanatics. I love steak.”

We need to understand that the potential of someone to become vegan and an animal rights supporter is not up to the actions we do. In every type of action you will encounter opposition, even for a quiet demo, or to delivering pamphlets in the street. The point is that people who don’t care for the animals (most of the human population) will be against you almost no matter what you’ll do, and you won’t succeed in turning them to vegans, and people who have the potential to become vegan will also be convinced no matter what you do (let’s leave aside violent actions). This is my ground point of view, and why I chose to participate in this action, because I don’t think that it can turn away people who have potential, and with these kinds of actions you can get worldwide exposure with minimum time and money.

The animal rights movement always blames everything else beside the real guilty party. We blame our message, we blame culture, we even blame education, just because we don’t want to face the truth – that people just don’t care. We always complain that people should open their eyes and face the truth about the holocaust of animals, well it’s time for the animal rights movement to do the same. You don’t antagonize people by your actions; people don’t care for our ideology in the first place, so it is important to stay united as a movement behind hardcore actions, and to keep a strong ethic ideology for animal rights, with no compromises.

What is the mission of 269 Life? What do you hope to accomplish with your organization?

One of the purposes of this campaign is to “speak” to animal rights activists. This shocking demo has a message for the animal rights activists who consider themselves as non-speciesist, committed activists. True activists are not just looking to feel good about themselves, but are really determined to look for animal liberation solutions. We speak to activists who joined the movement neither for social reasons nor dietary ones – but for justice. We want to reach activists who won’t stop thinking of revolutionary ideas to promote animal liberation as soon as possible. About 95 to 99 percent of the population just doesn’t care and will never become vegan willingly. So yes, we still have to work to reach the few who have potential, but let’s not delude ourselves – something has to change.

The animal rights struggle is at rock bottom. There is not enough money, not enough committed non-speciesist vegan activists, and worse of all, the most vicious enemy, people, 7 billion of them, who have many interests in keeping animals enslaved, and who are inherently so selfish, that even the awareness campaigns we have done for many, many years haven’t affected them.

The first step towards solving a problem is acknowledging it. Maybe we don’t have the perfect and easy solution right now, but we know for sure what will not liberate animals – and that is to continue using the same methods. Increasing awareness will not solve the problem. It’ll just recruit some more people who weren’t aware until now, but that’s only a negligible part of the human population. Let’s not forget – almost all humans are aware of The Animal Holocaust but they just don’t care. So please, for the sake of the animals, let’s stop pretending because it only hurts them.

We hope that this branding action, besides spreading the word for animal rights globally, will encourage each and every one of you to start and be more active for them, and in non-conventional ways. If things stay the way they are, the animal holocaust is here to stay.

The second purpose of this campaign is to spread the word for animal rights so that more people will hear about this issue, especially in places where they haven’t heard about it before. That is why we aimed for global distribution, and in the Youtube statistics we did get views in almost every country in the world. Now we just need to continue to maximize the number of viewers in every place.

If these purposes are accomplished, we believe we’ll get more vegans who became vegans for ethical reasons, and which we believe have more probability to stay vegan all their lives, and become active for animal rights.

Also, we believe that we’ll get an increase in the amount of vegans that will take part in more hardcore and global actions, and that will try to look for non-conventional activities for animal liberation than doing another soft demo/stand/lecture etc.

Where do you see 269 going in the future?

I hope that it’ll spread globally. Right now activists around the world are gathering and doing follow-up events, like this one. I hope that it’ll open the eyes of the potential meat-eaters to become vegans, as well as the eyes of the vegan activists to become more active and especially more effective. Campaigns such as 269, which is not conventional in its actions and deals only with the moral aspect of animal rights – is the path animal rights activists should go in, if they continue in the propaganda direction. I hope we’ll see much more actions like this one, and especially more activists who start to choose other ways than propaganda to try and end The Animal Holocaust.

269, animal rights, Israel, vegan

September 22nd, 2012 by Kezia

There are fewer households with pets, and fewer pets in U.S. homes, according to the latest AVMA numbers. Most attribute the decline to the economy. As most who work in pet rescue can attest, the number of pets given up in shelters is increasing as people face unemployment and foreclosure.

If this guy can keep his dog, so can you.

An “owner surrender” due to loss of one’s home elicits sympathy: someone facing hard times, presumably through no fault of their own, loses not only their house but their best friend. Rental units that allow animals are difficult to find – every time I see a real estate sign that says “for rent, no pets” I want to pelt it with eggs. (I don’t, because that wouldn’t be vegan.) The lack of available housing for people with pets is a serious issue in cities today. Civic action to compel more property owners to accept pets is very needed, particularly when so many people must downsize.

While this is a real problem, people who abandon their pets for housing reasons don’t get a free pass. (I was delighted to read this news story about a local pet-friendly homeless shelter.)

A decent person would rather live in a tent city, a car or a cardboard box with their pets than take them to a shelter where death is certain. These animals haven’t done anything wrong to justify being abandoned. People who throw their animals away like trash don’t deserve sympathy. There is no justification for indifference to the animals who love them and depend on them.

You cannot convince me that this person exhausted all options. There are dozens of alternatives, only one of which is to move to a place that accepts pets. Cats and small dogs are easy to sneak in and out of a building.

Rather than sentencing a pet to death, they could have placed them with a friend, family member, coworker, or neighbor – at least then they could continue to visit their pet. They could have found them a new home with a kind stranger through an ad. They could have contacted a rescue organization or even a sanctuary. They could have put them temporarily in a foster home or even a kennel until they found more suitable housing.

There are times when the care of a pet becomes too expensive for people with shrinking means, and in this specific circumstance, it can be better for the animal to live elsewhere rather than suffer hunger or neglect. However, these are not the financial hardships we’ve heard lately. (Putting two kids through college is not cause to abandon your dog, but it is cause to insist your brats get part-time jobs in the dining commons.) As with housing, a decent person would give up satellite television before they’d give up a dog.

I am not sure why animal lovers seem to think playing the financial hardship or foreclosure card is an acceptable reason to abandon an animal. Is it sad? Yes, it’s sad – for the animal who is left in a cage to die alone, scared, and unwanted, with no idea what they’ve done to warrant it. But it’s not sad for the human who abandons them.

My thanks to Pets of the Homeless for the above photo, and for their important work.

animal rescue, companion animals

September 10th, 2012 by Gary Smith

Op-ed writer Nicholas Kristoff’s Sunday piece “Where Cows Are Happy and Food is Healthy” explains that there are farms across the United States where the farmers love their animals, where the farms still have souls, unlike those big, bad factory farms. His article, as well as books by Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, Nina Planck and others, all serve the same mythology, that humans can not only not feel bad about consuming the flesh of sentient beings and their secretions, but that it is somehow noble to do so. And, magically, all of the chronic diseases that have been associated with consuming animal products – heart disease, stroke, type II diabetes, some cancers, kidney and liver disease – are not associated with eating animals from these magical farms.

All of that is offensive in its own right, but if you actually pull some of the ideas/quotes from the article, it’s even more offensive.

As long as I’ve known him, Bob has had names for every one of his “girls,” as he calls his cows.

He names his slaves. There’s really nothing remarkable about that. Plantation owners named their slaves as well. Note the emphasis also on “his” girls and “his” cows, implying that they are not sentient beings but rather property owned by Bob. It’s amazing that Kristoff doesn’t make the connection between seeing the cows that are exploited on Bob’s farm as property. How can you have a relationship with property?

“I spend every day with these girls,” Bob explained. “I know most of my cows both by the head and by the udder. You learn to recognize them from both directions.”

This is plain creepy. He knows “his” cows so well from extracting their milk from their nipples that he can recognize them by their nipples. I get that this is supposed to be playful, but it illustrates how often he uses them for his gain. It’s as if he is saying that he exploits “his” cows so often, that he has an equal relationship with their udders as he does their face.

I asked about Jill, and Bob rattled off her specs. She is now producing about eight gallons a day, with particularly high protein and butterfat content. Jill’s mother was Jolly, a favorite of Bob’s. When Jolly grew old and unproductive, he traded her to a small family farm in exchange for a ham so she could live out her retirement with dignity.

If Bob cared deeply for “his” cows, how in the world does Kristoff explain him trading her for the flesh of a once sentient pig? If he had a relationship with Jill, how did Jill feel about being traded for a ham? I would feel certain that Jill would be upset by Bob trading her for flesh. What happens to his parents or his wife when they become old and unproductive? Maybe they get traded for a pair of leather shoes?

Many cows in America now live out their lives in huge dairy barns, eating grain and hay and pumping out milk. But evidence is growing that cows don’t do well when locked up, so now many dairies are reverting to the traditional approach of sending cows out to pasture on grass.

Who knew that sentient beings with complex inner lives and emotions don’t do well when locked up? I hope he doesn’t expect me to believe that humans incarcerated have healthy, balanced lives in prison. Of course, the cows that Bob exploited didn’t actually commit a crime to be sentenced to a life of exploitation. (Neither did a lot of people in prison.)

“For productivity, it’s important to have happy cows,” [Bob] said. “If a cow is at her maximum health and her maximum contentedness, she’s profitable. I don’t even really manage my farm so much from a fiscal standpoint as from a cow standpoint, because I know that, if I take care of those cows, the bottom line will take care of itself.”

This could easily read, “If I keep my slaves contented, they get way more work done on the cotton farm.” I wonder exactly how he calculates happiness in cows? His statement also draws us back to the fact that “his” cows are inventory. They are production units. It’s no different than any business that sells products, non-sentient products.

This isn’t to say that Bob’s farm is a charity hostel. When cows age and their milk production drops, farmers slaughter them. Bob has always found that part of dairying tough, so, increasingly, he uses the older cows to suckle steers. That way the geriatric cows bring in revenue to cover their expenses and their day of reckoning can be postponed — indefinitely, in the case of his favorite cows.

I’m glad we acknowledge that Bob and other farmers slaughter, i.e. murder “their” happy cows once they no longer are profitable. Kristoff seems to brush off this fact as if he turns in his old tractor for a new tractor. I also like that he plays god in that his favorite units of property aren’t murdered. If I were his son, I’d make sure I was his favorite!

I teased Bob about running a bovine retirement home, and he smiled unapologetically. “I feel good about it,” he said simply. “They support me as much as I support them, so it’s easy to get attached to them. I want to work hard for them because they’ve taken good care of me.”

By “supporting them,” does Bob mean feeding and keeping them alive? Thanks for the support, Bob. Please don’t trade me in for ham. Is that equal to “providing” him with gallons of milk for him to sell? As for taking good care of him, that’s an odd way of saying their being exploited against their wills has provided for him financially.

“You hate to have it go to legislation, but we need to protect the animals,” he said. “They’re living things, and you have to treat them right.”

How is he protecting “his” cows? By only murdering a percentage of his slaves? I’m glad that he acknowledges that they are living “things.” Not “unliving things” like tractors, hay, shoes. How does he treat them right, by exploiting them and using them as milking machines until they are less productive? Wonder how he’d feel about his children being supported like Bob supports “his” cows?

As Bob’s dairy shows, food need not come at the cost of animal or human health and welfare. We need not wince when we contemplate where our food comes from.

Animals are healthy being force-bred, confined, having their children and milk stolen for Bob’s wallet? Yes, you do need to wince. You are stealing the lives, the babies, and milk from sentient beings. You need to wince because all of us know that using individuals is wrong. There is no better or kinder way of exploiting others. Wince, my friend.

The next time you drink an Organic Valley glass of milk, it may have come from one of Bob’s cows. If so, you can bet it was a happy cow. And it has a name.

The fact that Kristoff uses the term “it” to describe the happy cow just about sums everything up. Neither Kristoff nor Bob have any respect for the sentience of those that they exploit for their pleasure. If they truly respected dairy cows, or chickens, turkeys, pigs, sheep and other animals used for food, they’d go vegan.

What is missing from this in-depth, fantasy piece is what happens to the calves who are born on Bob’s farm. Are the boys sold off to become veal? Does he keep the girls and exploit them when they reach the proper age to be force bred? Does he sell some of the female calves, the ones he doesn’t give a name to? How does he breed the dairy cows?

The only “humane farms” or “happy farms” are sanctuaries, such as Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary in New York, co-founded by Jenny Brown and her husband Doug Abel. They pick up after the likes of Bob and others. They rescue and care for hundreds of animals who are the refugees of this fantasy world of kinder exploitation. At WFAS, the animals do have names, and get to live out their lives in dignity. They are not asked to produce profits nor will they be traded for a ham when their lives have no financial meaning. As Brown’s new memoir “The Lucky Ones” makes clear, the “small,” “local,” “humane,” “family” farms are places of egregious cruelty, neglect, and indifference.

Some might find Kristoff’s article refreshing, believing that his farm is a step in the right direction, or that his farm is much better than a factory farm housing thousands of dairy cows. The problem is not in the size of the farm nor the treatment, the issue is using individuals in the first place. No cow deserves to have their lives and rights taken away from them so that another can profit and others can please their palates.

Articles like these are dangerous because they lull people into believing that if you buy your milk from a farm like Bob’s, your conscience is clear. It’s not. If you know enough to care about the treatment of animals used for food products, then you know enough to go vegan.

humane farms, New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff, veagn

September 8th, 2012 by Kezia

The question “why don’t animal activists care about people?” has many worthy responses, including the toll of animal agribusiness on workers and the environment, and the food and water resources that are used to feed animals that could feed hungry people instead.

All these answers are of course given to assure others that yes, we do care about people. And it’s absolutely true that people who care about animals tend to care about other social justice issues too.

Another response to this challenge comes from quotable thinkers like Gandhi and Schweitzer. “The greatness of a society and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals,” said the former; “Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace,” said the latter.

"Mahatma Gumby," (c) Dan Piraro 2011, www.bizarrocomics.com

Worthy as these sentiments are, in both cases the meaning is clear: we care about animals because it benefits human society to do so.

But this question deserves another kind of answer, one that is animal-centric rather than human-centric.

Here’s one simplistic answer: because somebody has to. Ask any PTA mom or neighborhood watch captain why they do it, and they’ll tell you: some of us do so much because other people do so little. Very few people are wiling to speak up for animals, therefore the call to do so may feel stronger than other causes.

If you gathered a cross-section of 100 intelligent, aware people in a room, I’ll bet 99 of them will tell you they care a lot about children. 90 of them will say they care about human health. 85 will say they care deeply about homelessness, hunger, and poverty. 80 of them will care about racism. 70 will care about the environment. 60 of them will care about reproductive rights. 50 of them will care about LGBT rights. Statistically speaking, less than half a person cares about animals, at least to the extent that they’re willing to stop eating them.

It’s often said that less than two cents of every dollar donated to charity goes to support animals. While I can think of no way to verify that factoid, those two cents have to stretch to cover a broad variety of issues from dog and cat rescue to farmed and exotic animal sanctuaries to wildlife conservation to animal activist defense.

We care about animals because the need for our support is so great. As our friends at I Heart AR say, “Because there are very few laws protecting animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuses by humans, it is that much more imperative that we stand up and ensure the defense of their lives and safety for them.”

Given the vast number of lives lost, animal activists address the number one cause of death in the world today. Animal exploitation is a holocaust whose proportions cannot be underplayed. Staunching this suffering, as best we can, should need no justification and no apology.

It may make people uncomfortable, but that shouldn’t stop us from explaining the animal-based reasons for animal activism.

animal rights, animal rights activist, communication, speciesism