Deep Roots: Animal Rights Blog

Puppy Mill Legislation Passes Committee

Indiana House Bill 1468 passed through committee yesterday and is entering a vote in the House of Representatives in the next week. It is important that everyone contact their representative to let them know that you support HB 1468 because it will strengthen what is now a very weak animal cruelty code and will help put a stop to puppy mills in the state.

If you are not sure who your representative is or how to contact them, go to http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/

Although emails help, we strongly encourage you to take the time to call your representative. Calls are always brief. You will need to identify yourself as an individual from the representatives district and tell them you want them to support HB 1468.

Please act now and pass on to your own network of family, friends and coworkers! Your House Representative needs to know that you want to put an end to puppy mills and animal cruelty in Indiana.

To read the full bill, go to http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/HB/HB1468.1.html

From HSUS:

(Sept. 23, 2008) – The Humane Society of the United States applauds U.S. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) for introducing legislation today to combat “wildlife penning”— fenced enclosures where wild animals are ripped apart by packs of dogs in competitive animal fights. The Wildlife Penning Prohibition Act of 2008, H.R. 6988, would amend the Lacey Act to prohibit the interstate transport of animals used in wildlife penning.

In this staged animal combat, dogs with numbers painted on their sides are judged on how quickly they pursue fenced-in wildlife, usually foxes and coyotes. Scored trials in wildlife pens sometimes last for days with the dogs ripping apart and killing many of the captive animals. In a recent multi-state sting, federal and state authorities uncovered the interstate smuggling of thousands of animals to stock these enclosures.

“The grisly practice of trapping and selling animals to be used as ‘live bait’ in fenced enclosures is not only inhumane, but also could spread diseases across state lines,” said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of The Humane Society of the United States. “We are grateful to Congressman Holt for introducing this important animal protection bill that protects native wildlife from being used in gruesome animal fights.”

“The practice of fox penning is inhumane and unsportsmanlike,” said Rep. Holt. “The foxes and coyotes captured for these purposes are mistreated from the moment they are trapped to the moment they are torn apart by dogs in an escape-proof enclosure. I have introduced H.R. 6988 to stop this practice by outlawing the transport of animals for the purposes of fox penning.”

The appalling practice of wildlife penning begins when wildlife are caught in the steel jaws of a leghold trap and suffer excruciating pain. The wild animals are removed from the traps and packed into a cage with other injured animals. A recent investigation revealed that coyotes and foxes are shipped hundreds of miles in cramped cages with no access to food or water. Some animals die on the trip. Those who survive are bought by wildlife pen owners.

Facts:

* The import of foxes and coyotes to stock enclosures is illegal in many states. The Indiana Natural Resources Commission unanimously voted in July to stop the live trapping of coyotes in that state for transport to wildlife pens.
* During the recent interstate investigation, in Alabama alone 18 individuals were charged in connection to smuggling foxes and coyotes for sale to wildlife pens. Authorities brought charges against wildlife pen operators and trappers in half a dozen other states.
* Studies have found that transporting live, wild animals for penning purposes has directly led to the spread of rabies and other diseases dangerous to wildlife, pets and people.
* The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the American Veterinary Medical Association have encouraged regulations against the transporting of wildlife for penning purposes.

The HSUS works to stop wildlife abuse across the country. Visit humanesociety.org/wildlifeabuse for more information.

Welcome to the 9th Carnival of Empty Cages! It is amazing how many great posts were written in the past month (and to think of all the posts that weren’t submitted or I didn’t find). There are a lot of topics covered in this edition of the carnival. I hope you enjoy. Be sure to submit your post (or someone else’s post that you really enjoy) for the next edition. You can submit by emailing the link to chris (at) deeprootssanctuary.org or use the submission form.

Making Connections
Veganism and Prison Abolition [The Vegan Ideal]
When I first started the Carnival of Empty Cages (in 2006, I think), I named it that for a reason. I told be to “think creatively about what cages we need to empty.” I did this because I wanted people to include prison abolition in this discussion, but I hoped folks would come to this conclusion on their own. Nine carnivals later and I am ecstatic to announce the first such post… AND it connects veganism! Thanks, Dani! Now the veil is lifted… I (and Deep Roots) want to have sincere dialog about prison abolition and how it relates to the abolition of all oppression and exploitation (this is why we table with prison abolition literature next to our AR lit).

Now’s the Time (No Time Like Now) [SuperWeed]
Pattrice has a great post about the food-feed-fuel conflict that is driving the global food crisis. I particularly like her conclusion that vegan advocates should seize the day to tout the cost efficiency of a vegan diet (while not ignoring the ethics, of course). The Vegan Ideal has a post on food distribution arguing that veganism must create a shift in power.

Mutt, Mulatto, Mule? [Vegans of Color]
Amalgamated looks at the history of the word mutt and shows how people of color are referred to as non-human animals and how non-human animals are considered lower than humans.

Call for Proposals: Coming Out for Animals [Queering Animal Liberation]
Kim Stallwood, pattrice jones, and Olivia Lane are putting together a book looking at the links between Queer identity/activism and animal liberation. This is the call for submissions. The deadline is August 30th.

There have been some criticisms of this call (hopefully constructive criticisms) from The Vegan Ideal and us here at Deep Roots.

Stupid Things Herbivore’s Say: Worry About Human Rights, Not Animal Rights [Vegan Soapbox]
Eccentric Vegan responds to the notion that worrying about animal rights and being vegan are wastes of time until all humans live in an egalitarian society.

Torture: It’s A Dog’s Life [The Vegan Ideal]
Dani talks about how torture techniques used on prisoners in the so-called “War on Terror” were developed on dogs in the 1970s. The posts then goes on to examine how the original research into these techniques should also be considered torture. Its quite simple really.

Alliance Building and Militarism [The Vegan Ideal]
I know, a lot of posts from The Vegan Ideal. What can I say, Dani does good work. This is about how PETA, in its denouncement of the military’s use of pigs as targets, fails to make an important alliance between the peace and animal lib movements.

Animals and the Environment
Environmental Protection and Animal Rights [Happy Vegetable]
The Happy Vegetable talks about the need for vegans to recognize that veganism is a great step for the environment, but its not enough.

Living a vegan lifestyle is your personal protest against animal cruelty. So don’t let it stop with what you put in your mouth or what you wear.

Deb at Invinsible Voices also had a couple of related posts including one on transitioning to a bicycle and another visual post this month showing the connections between animal rights and the environment.

Random Animal Rights Stuff
Animal Rights 101, part four: Property Status [An Animal-Friendly Life]
Despite wearing a cast, Eric managed to put together the four part in his introductory series to animal rights.

Unlike bicycles and all other inanimate objects, sentient animals do have interests that merit consideration, and this presents us with our problem: Because they are legally classified as property that humans may use as a means to any recognized end, just like inanimate objects such as bicycles, they are prevented from possessing any legal rights that would protect their interests.

On Honest Meat and Absent Referents [Animal Person]
Mary talks about what isn’t being talked about when animal exploiters refer to “production.” Ok, I’m a sucker for discussions on absent referents.

Woman Sentenced to 2 Years for Rescuing Dog, “Terrorists” Rescue More Animals in Retaliation [Green Is The New Red]
Will writes about a UK activist who was just sentenced to two years in prison for rescuing a dog after animal agencies wouldn’t respond to calls of abuse.

H Partners Dumps All HLS (LSR) Shares [Food Fight!]
Food Fight shares the good news that the second largest institutional investor in HLS (LSR), the largest contract animal testing company, has dropped their entire $22,452,000 HLS portfolio. It took less than a month and all SHAC had to do was basically ask. Maybe H Partners care about animal rights, maybe they were just scared to be a SHAC target. Who cares.

Hog Wrestling in Wisconsin [Veg Blog]
Ryan talks about an annual hog wrestling event in Wisconsin (complete with disturbing picture) and why no amount of claims cannot make such events humane. Kelly at Smite Me! also wrote a little more in depth about the hog wrestling event.

William Saletan: The new hierarchy of GAP [An Animal-Friendly Life]
Eric responds to the Spanish parliament’s decision to extend the right to life and freedom to great apes. His conclusion is beautiful:

Animal activists often take approaches like GAP to be tactical means to the end of extending rights to all animals some day (as points of spears and such), but this kind of thinking misses the mark. We don’t need to extend the hierarchy, we need to erase that hierarchy entirely

Shouldn’t we simply avoid cruelty? [That Vegan Girl]
Alex writes about how we do not avoid certain actions because those actions are considered cruel (or because laws tell us not to), but rather because ethical imperatives stop us.

It’s not euthanasia! [That Vegan Girl]
Alex explains that using “euthanasia” to describe the process of killing animals in shelters is a misnomer. Thanks, Alex! The misuse of the term euthanasia is a pet peeve of mine.

The motive of the person who commits an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. The individual who is suffering has an exceedingly poor quality of life, for example, and is, therefore, the direct object of concern.

Last week I posted the call for submissions for Coming Out for Animals: Queering Animal Liberation. Before even posting that call, it had already generated some discussion here at Deep Roots.Let me start by saying that I am Queer. And I love the idea of an anthology that looks at the connections of any liberation struggles. But the wording of the call does pose some questions.

A Problem with Words

Dani, at The Vegan Ideal, has already stated outrage over the notion that animal rights activists are the most targeted segment of the U.S. population. Or as the call asks:

Why do queer activists in Uganda but animal activists in the USA bear the brunt of police suppression in their respective countries? Are they similarly subversive of “cultural” practices that turn out to be critical to the maintenance of state power?

I whole-heartedly agree with Dani’s outrage. I’ve had the privilege of reading Pattrice’s writing before and my guess is that this is perhaps a misunderstanding in context. Perhaps it was meant the as far as activist groups go, animal rights activists “bear the brunt” in the U.S., whereas Queer activists are the most targeted in Uganda. If that is the intended statement, I may be more inclined to agree or at least less inclined to outrage.

There is perhaps a problem with comparison in this example. Animal rights activists in the U.S. are targeted for our activities and successes against large corporations. Queer activists in Uganda are not targeted because they are activists, or not solely because they are activists. They are targeted for being Queer, thus the situation requires the transition into activism.

What makes the claim of animal rights activists being the most targeted somewhat legitimate? The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is the first thing that comes to mind. Animal rights activists can now be sent to prison as terrorists for doing nothing but hindering the profits of animal exploitation businesses. That is what happened with the SHAC 7. They were not charged with any physical crime or even the conspiracy to commit a physical crime. Instead, they were targeted as terrorists because they ran a website that helped other activists effectively shut down the largest animal testing company. They are now serving federal prison sentences. But immigrants who participate in immigrant rights work (or any activist work for that matter) can be detained for an indefinite amount of time and deported without having committed any crime other than crossing an imaginary border to provide for themselves and their family.

It is also known that FBI agents commonly try to infiltrate animal rights groups (and vegan potlucks). However, it is also known that they are doing that with peace and environmental groups. I would also be surprised if they were not at least attempting to infiltrate immigrant rights groups. So to that extent, animal rights groups are, indeed, targeted. But perhaps not as disproportionately so as we would like to believe. After all, I believe the six SHAC activists are the only ones that have been imprisoned who didn’t actually commit any crimes (even if the other crimes were non-violent, they are still generally accepted as punishable crimes). And environmental activists such as Jeffrey Luers, who did commit the crime of burning SUVs, are serving far more disproportionate sentences (23 years for Luers).

So far, I’ve been arrested or detained for anti-war activities, anti-sweatshop activities, and counter-globalization activities, but not yet animal rights work. Not that one person’s experience can serve as the standard for an entire population, but that is my experience so far. The argument could be made that I haven’t been effective enough yet in my animal rights activism:)

Dani also makes a great point about something that I have been hoping to address here on this blog for several months now:

this call for papers ignore how activists are manufacturing increased police suppression that targets oppressed groups by actively promoting stiffer sentencing for anti-cruelty laws, and specifically criminalizing “animal cruelty” identified with poor people and people of color (i.e., dog fighting and cock fighting)

Sexualizing Things That Are Not Sexual

All of the above discussion was not, however, a part of the original dialogue sparked here at Deep Roots. The original concern, brought up by Jerico, was “are we continuing the trend of sexualizing something that isn’t sexual?” There is context to this question that I will get to in a moment, but let me first point out that this line of discussion was perhaps sparked by another problem with wording.

The subtitle of the book, Queering Animal Liberation, is kind of problematic. As Jerico pointed out, this title chose the language of “animal liberation” as opposed to animal rights or animal welfare. As longtime animal liberation activists, Jerico and I both agree that this is one of the Queerest and most Queer-friendly movements we have been a part of. Hell, there was an uprising at the Grassroots Animal Rights Conference because the keynote speaker is an outspoken homophobe. All of this is not to say that there isn’t work to be done within the animal lib movement.

Another question was why do we need to “Queer” animal liberation? Shouldn’t animal liberation as a concept be strong enough that it doesn’t need to be attached to some other liberation struggle in order to be justified? I hope the book will be used as a tool to show how liberation struggles are connected, but that in those connections they stand up in their own right as liberation struggles that must be taken seriously by those concerned with compassion and justice.

Jerico also pointed out that perhaps it could be called “The Queering of Animal Liberation.” This is where I’ll get into the context I mentioned above. Over the past year or two, we have seen a rapid increase in the attempt to connect veganism and animal lib work to some sort of deprived sexuality. The New York Times went so far as to claim a new breed of sexuality: vegansexuality. The idea that vegans will only sleep with other vegans because everyone else disgusts us. While vegans may be more apt to sleep with other vegans, you could say the same thing of liberals sleeping with liberals, conservatives with conservatives, Christians with Christians, Muslims with Muslims, Jews with Jews, you get the point. The reason is not that all of these people have some sort of sexually deprived minds, but that we like to be intimate with people who have common interests and ethics.

But it didn’t start or stop with vegansexuality. For a long time, it has been tried to attach animal liberationists to bestiality. Even Mother Jones sorta played into this notion by introducing the term “petophilia,” which I guess is supposed to refer to people who seem to care more about their non-human companions than the humans around them.

There were a series of articles recently published that tried to prove that herbivorous diets, especially those containing soy, will turn your children into Queers. And still to this day, there are very enlightened people who shout “fag” or “dyke” as they pass a crowd of animal lib activists. Obviously I don’t take these to be the insults they are meant to be, but it begs the question, “why is animal liberation and veganism seen as an activity for Queer people?”

The Remaining Straight-Edge Vegans

One last thing that was brought up that I repeat solely because I think it is funny, is Jerico’s response the the question, “What are we going to do about homophobia among straight-edge vegans?” His response: “Um, I don’t know. Go back to the 90s when it was still a problem?”

Mind you, we are both substance-free. We have both been around long enough to watch the rise and fall of the straight-edge scene. While there are still a lot of straight-edge people, the scene (if it is still a scene) is a lot different. In fact, the strongest proponent of straight-edge life that I know is Queer. Straight-edge seems to no longer be entrenched in the hardcore dudeliness that it once was.

None of this is to say that I think the book is a bad idea. I don’t. I am really interested in this discussion and hope that it succeeds. I merely hope that the critiques will encourage people to write thoughtful essays that truly challenge movements to become the liberation struggles we purport them to be. I think this is what the editors want to get out of this project as well and it is going to take all of us to accomplish that.

It is not exactly the victory we would hope for, a year-round ban on live-caught coyotes, but earlier this month, the Indiana Natural Resources Commission (NRC) adopted a new rule change prohibiting the sale of live coyotes caught outside the hunting and trapping season, which runs from October 15 to March 15. Although not a total victory, this is a huge blow against the live-export industry and thus the hunting and trapping industry.

Indiana is the largest exporter of live-caught coyotes. These coyotes are often used in dog “training” sessions where multiple dogs are released upon a single coyote trapped in an enclosed area. The dogs are scored on how quickly they find and kill the coyote. This “training” is nothing more than legalized dog fighting, but its multiple dogs against one coyote.

The rule change does nothing to stop coyotes from being live-caught during the off-season, but rather states that they must be released or killed within 24 hours. However, during the public hearing period, many trappers stated that they would not be able to continue “removing the nuisance species” if they were unable to use the live coyotes because it would no longer be economically viable for them. This was there way of threatening the DNR and NRC; “if you don’t let us do what we want, you’ll have coyotes everywhere.” Thankfully the NRC saw through this baseless threat.

Even though the rule only applies to a six-month period, it sets a new precedent that legally states that such practices are morally questionable. Our next step is to prove this practice is not only questionable, but morally bankrupt. While we will continue working with other groups to stop this practice year-round, we encourage everyone to thank the NRC for their action. Here is their contact info:

Indiana Government Center North
100 North Senate Avenue, Room N501
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(317) 232-4699
(317) 233-2977 Fax

Or send them an email through their online contact form.