Yulin, Yet Again

Despite the global pandemic, despite rumors that the origins of COVID-19 were at a wet market in China, despite the Chinese government’s determination that dogs are pets and not livestock and should not be killed for consumption, the Yulin’s Lychee and Dog Meat Festival is in full force this year. Organizers prepare for this 10-day festival by rounding up – by any means necessary – thousands of dogs and cats and killing them so they can be sold. Animals are stolen from families, pulled off the streets, and purchased from other countries in order to satisfy the demand during the festival.

Although it has been reported across multiple news agencies that organizers claim the animals are killed humanely, activists have refuted that, providing footage of dogs being boiled and skinned alive (among other unimaginable atrocities). According to multiple sources, the Chinese believe that a tortured animal produces more tender (and better-tasting) meat.

The following video is short, but there are some disturbing and graphic images, so please use caution if you decide to view.

Eating dog meat is not exclusive to the festival; in fact, the dog meat trade, which also includes cats, is an industry in several Asian countries. Although the existence of “dog meat farms” is contested, there is no doubt that the animals are stolen and often transported long distances. They are brutalized, crammed into cages, limbs sometimes broken, beaten, and must endure unimaginable suffering before a tortuous death.

https://www.animalsasia.org/us/our-work/cat-and-dog-welfare/facts-about-dog-meat-trade.html

What, some people ask, is the difference between killing a cow and killing a dog? Between the barbarity of the farming industry in the US and that of the dog meat trade in Asia? Aren’t we being hypocritical when we denounce another cultural’s practice that causes the same kind of immeasurable suffering that one of ours does?

I think so. But the people who aren’t able to recognize the suffering farm animals endure – or see it as just another product of Western culture – remind us that dogs and cats are domesticated and share their lives with us in ways that cows and pigs don’t. Meat-eating and whatever it takes to get the food on the table is as deeply ingrained as is dog meat consumption in Asia.

Those of us who understand in a deep way that suffering is a universal experience have the responsibility to do whatever we can to educate others and to look for solutions that will alleviate the pain of that suffering for individuals.

What can you do? Any action is a step forward, no matter how small. Write, talk to your friends about the impact of their behavior on animals, sign petitions, support films made to educate the public about animal welfare, teach your children to be kind and compassionate to animals. Anything you can do is worth your effort and will elevate the lives of animals all over the world.

A Life for an Iris

It was my nephew’s birthday and my mom and niece were visiting on the back deck; well, to be more precise, they were hanging over the back deck and pointing at something out of view. After several minutes, I finally went out and asked what was so interesting. Then I saw it; a squirrel was caught in a humane trap just below the deck. As mom explained, a neighbor had set it for the chipmunks.

My mom’s neighbors have a lovely if not simple backyard. The colorful perimeter is peppered with orange day lilies, patches of yellow and white daisies, milkweed for the monarchs, a magnolia tree, budding rose of sharon, and a whole host of other flowers in bloom I couldn’t identify. In the center of the yard is one of three bird feeders and a bird house that peak out from a trellis full of some sort of ivy. I’d seen deer in the yard many times, and they had more birds than my mom did.

I wasn’t clear why we were just standing there, watching the squirrel pace and throw itself against the trap. I went down and opened it part of the way when the neighbor came running to pull the release and the squirrel escaped under a nearby bush. The neighbor came out and, as we chatted about milkweed and bumblebees and monarch butterflies, I learned that he used the trap to capture chipmunks. What, I asked did he do with them when he caught them. “Bucket of water,” he said with a shrug and a slight grin.

Shit. It was unexpected. I figured anyone who planted milkweed for butterflies and bumblebees and fed birds year-round surely wasn’t using a Havahart® trap for anything other than the humane trapping and releasing of animals.

“You know,” he said, “releasing an animal somewhere else would be illegal.”

He was right. In most places, it is illegal to trap an animal then remove it to another location. It was also cruel. Like taking grandma out of the home she’s lived in all her life and moving her across the country, away from all family and friends.

He went on with a patronizing shrug, saying that he knew they were cute – the deer were cute when they were little and chipmunks certainly were cute – but they ate his bushes. They destroyed his plants and his trees.

I didn’t say what I was thinking, only because this man is my mom’s friend and one of the only people she sees these days on any sort of regular basis. But I did express my extreme displeasure and disengaged from the conversation immediately.

I’m pretty sure the Havahart® inventors did not expect consumers to capture animals humanely in their trap, only to be drowned when removed. Even to save the life of the greenery in the yard. Unfortunately, this do-anything-to-save-what-is-mine or let-nothing-stand-in-the-way-of-what-I-think-makes-me-happy attitude is a deeply ingrained one in our species. It requires constant and mindful attention to our own thoughts and biases and a willingness to make change.

Choosing Euthanasia

On 13. June 2020, my beautiful 17-year-old tabby, ‘rissa, died after a long bout with what my vet finally came to believe was a nasal or frontal mass. For two years, she had repeated respiratory infections with sneezing and coughing, as well as occasional breathing issues; we treated her with steroids and antibiotics and hot steam showers and wet, warm compresses. Her symptoms eased after each treatment and she continued to eat, drink, eliminate, and play until maybe 3 or 4 months before her death.

At that point, I began to notice swelling at the bridge of her nose and, later, at her forehead. It came and went and came again, with steroids helping each time. But as the days wore on, she gradually stopped eating most of her food, no longer played and, in the last week, demonstrated severe weakness in her hind legs.

That night, the 13th, she had been lying around all day, as she had in the past week. We were getting ready for bed and she got down off the couch, peed on the floor, and just plopped down, seemingly exhausted and unable to go on. I’d seen her plop down like that a few times, but this time was measurably different.

I’d been thinking for a long while about how I would manage things when one of my girls could no longer function without noticeable suffering. My other cat, Silk, is 11 and has lymphoma; my concerns started more than a year ago with her and, while I never suspected ‘rissa would leave me first, I couldn’t help but consider possibilities for her as well.

I’ve never accepted euthanasia in the same way so many do today. I’ve never been able to get my head around the idea that when we euthanize, we are killing. We are stopping a heartbeat forever. Not only are we taking a life with euthanasia, with animals we are doing it without their consent. I ask myself all the questions I think everyone should be trying to understand: do they know? are they scared? do they wish they could stand up and yell at me to stop? are they truly suffering to the extent it appears? is this going to hurt them? I ask because, no matter how much people claim to understand about dying, nobody truly knows.

I think we rely too heavily on the idea that we can simply eliminate a part of a problem to solve the bigger one. Even those who are reportedly working for animal rights and care aren’t immune; organizations like PETA, which does fantastic work with/for farmed animals, has a long history of killing pets, oftentimes without any reasonable justification and sometimes completely outside of their rights to do so. People seek out vets to euthanize animals that are sick and too expensive or sometimes simply because they don’t want to care for them anymore. And many vets capitulate. It is unconscionable to me. Euthanasia is an acceptable end for animals in our society and its acceptance likely contributes to the way a great many people view their place as “less than” humans.

I made the decision for my girl that night and she died in my arms. It seemed to be a peaceful passing; one minute she was there, she was breathing, her heart was beating rapidly, I could feel the tautness in her muscles, and the next she wasn’t. She lay there, eyes open and head floppy, and she was just gone. I still don’t know if I did the right thing. I still wonder what that was like for her and I still sometimes worry that I did it because *I* couldn’t bear her suffering anymore. I believe she is at peace now, but it doesn’t relieve the worry that I put her through more than she deserved.

Silk is sitting with me as I write tonight, and I know she won’t be with me forever. I stopped chemo recently, because it was making her deathly ill, and will try a more natural approach to control her symptoms. I am dreading the day when living becomes too much for her. I can only rest in knowing that she and ‘rissa both have had a life filled with a love and any decisions I make are made in that same heart-centered space.

Killing to Alleviate Suffering

The following post was published on Medium on February 3, 2020. I will be following it up here (where I will do all of my animal advocacy writing from now on) with a different (sort of) perspective on euthanasia.

I hate the term euthanasia. Loaded with heavy, ugly baggage, it conjures up for me images of kill shelters that destroy animals indiscriminately and pet parents who send their dogs or cats off to the vet to be killed because they were too needy or too expensive or they just didn’t want them anymore. Yes, killed. Please don’t misunderstand. I believe there comes a time when sometimes it is the only thing we can do to relieve an animal companion’s suffering. But I also believe we often overstep that “right” — often as a means of self-preservation, in the guise of “what’s best for her.” And, in fact, there is just no way to get around that we are killing our beloved companions; they are not just dying. We are taking life from them.

When we talk about death, we often do it in terms that sanitize the process. A person has “passed on” or “gone to Heaven” or “bought the farm” or “transitioned.” Although we may believe what the terms we use imply — I prefer the latter term as, in death, we are transitioning out of this life and into an unknown — we still can’t seem to get our heads around the idea that at the end of this life, we will be no more. Regardless of our beliefs, there can be no argument that we are gone from the world as we know it. We won’t go out with friends anymore, cook dinner, watch television, or have long intimate conversations (and more) with our lovers. Despite what many think, we don’t know where we will go or be or if, maybe, we just disappear into the nothingness.

Nobody wants to just disappear, to no longer be a part of the world. You and I don’t want to be thrust into a dark and empty (why must it always be dark and empty? Why not a beautiful forest with tall and protective trees and lots of chatty birds?) place, alone and without the people and animals we love so we, as humans, create these places where we will live on, in one form or another.

We do the same thing for our animal companions. The difference is that we are making a decision to end their lives based on presumed knowledge. We actually don’t know for a certainty, that they want to die. What we do know is that we don’t want to see them suffer. Many times, we don’t truly make the decision for them, but rather for how we are feeling about their illness or injury. We “don’t want to see them suffer” is a common phrase I hear which says volumes about how we make these end-of-life decisions. We don’t like to sit with their suffering, or what we perceive to be their suffering. And, in this culture, suffering is to be avoided at all cost.

I heard someone say that euthanasia is a “beautiful” process. I’ve been in that position where I’ve had to make a decision about a pet, sat with her while the vet injected the drug that would (literally) per her to sleep before she died, watch my family slip away. It wasn’t beautiful. It was heart-wrenching. She was no more. And I didn’t actually know if I had eliminated her suffering or made it worse. But in the end, it was apparent that I’d been complicit in her killing.

I think natural death is a beautiful process. Slipping away, dissolving into the surrounding energy, as we are meant to do. I’m aware that we all have different views of what happens at/after death; it is that knowledge that gives me pause when considering euthanasia. What if, by killing a pet, we are plunging them into a deeper and darker suffering? Does the suffering they experience while alive serve a purpose? Am I truly doing it for them or to alleviate the pain and anxiety I feel, watching them decline?

There is no one answer that serves everyone. As humans, we will follow our beliefs no matter where they take us. But I would hope that, as guardians of those who are family, we would use the opportunity when the time comes to think seriously and critically about why we are making the decision we are.

And I would hope that, regardless of those personal beliefs, we can respect those of others and help them through the grief process without judgment.

The Suffering at Yulin

WARNING: GRAPHIC FOOTAGE IN FOLLOWING LINK

http://www.stopyulinforever.org/
Beginning June 21st and lasting through June 30th, the city of Yulin in the southeastern Guangxi province of China will hold the annual Lychee and Dog Meat Festival, commonly referred to as the Yulin Dog Meat Festival in the West. An estimated 10–15,000 dogs will be killed and eaten during the festival, which celebrates the summer solstice.

Although the consumption of dog meat in China goes back thousands of years, the sanctioning of this practice with an annual festival did not occur until 2010.Estimates of the number of dogs eaten worldwide and in China proper on an annual basis vary widely depending on sources. Manya Koetse, who reports on social trends in China for What’s on Weibo, reports that 13–16 million to dogs are eaten worldwide on an annual basis (and a number of other interesting, if not disturbing facts about dogs in China. I include the link for interested readers).
http://www.whatsonweibo.com/20-facts-about-dogs-dog-eating-in-china/
The bulk of that consumption is in Asia - in China, North and South Korea, the Phillipines, and Vietnam - but occurs in other parts of the world as well, including the United States. So why has this phenomenon, which has occurred for thousands of years, just recently garnered so much loud and aggressive attention in the international community? Why are people so up in arms about something that appears to be part of a longstanding cultural practice?

What is critical about Yulin is that it brings us the reality of the dog meat trade. This is humanity at its worst. It’s NOT about tradition or culture or health. It is, above all, about profit and ignorance and our inability to hold true compassion for the suffering of others.

The dogs that end up at Yulin are often pets that are stolen from families. When you see pictures of them, crowded in cages, they are cowering together, many with colorful collars. Rescuers, who often risk their own lives to save as many dogs as they can from death, have reported seeing both collars and tags. Others are strays, maybe belonging somewhere to someone, stolen for death. All end up at Yulin, starved and without water, beaten, terrorized, skinned, boiled, some electrocuted, and all in open markets in public and displayed in front of all the others taken and waiting to die.

Can you imagine, being kidnapped from your home, yanked from your run in the morning, crammed into a van with several others and driven miles away, never to see your family again? Worse yet, made to watch those strangers beaten and skinned alive, hanged, then dropped in boiling water? No. It horrifies me, too.

The torture, the Chinese say, is necessary. It tenderizes the meat. It’s also (mythically) important in warding off the heat of the summer and offers other health benefits.

Fortunately, the desire for higher profits that drove the creation of this festival also opened up the brutalities of the tradition to the rest of the world and allowed those in the international community to shine a bright spotlight on the cruelty and suffering these beautiful animals have been enduring for so long. The Chinese government and those who support this practice have received sharp and ongoing criticism from activists from all around the globe and there is an international effort to shut the festival down, as well as an organized effort at the nonprofit/governmental level to help investigate animal welfare laws and compliance. This is an ongoing and concerted effort that needs to continue, with pressure at all levels, from organizations and citizens alike.

There has been an unintended consequence to all of the current efforts, though, likely a product of our frenetic proliferation of “fake news.” If you search for Yulin today, you will see countless stories that the festival has been banned. That is NOT TRUE. As of May 26th, 2017, the festival was moving forward as planned. Efforts to shut it down need to be STEPPED UP and all support for dogs that are rescued from the dog meat trade must continue. Here is one of the latest articles on the status of this barbaric practice:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/809795/Yulin-Dog-Meat-Festival-China-go-ahead-officials-refuse-ban
Reposted to debaumer.wordpress.com and https://medium.com/@dianeelizabethbaumer

Suffering in Silence

The following was published on my wordpress site on December 4, 2013.  I was able to meet with zoo officials regarding this exhibit and significant changes were made with regard to the specific issues I address here. It was a small victory, though, as the exhibit as a whole still stands and its artificiality, as well as its close and confining spaces are simply pretty display for zoo-goers and lifelong prisons for the birds.
Every year I make a special effort to get to The Cincinnati Zoo several times for a visit. It’s one of those places I’ve been going since before I can remember; as a child, we would always take a day on the weekend and go to the zoo, the Natural History Museum (with the huge T-Rex standing in the lobby to greet us), or Coney Island. I loved all three, but animals have always held a special place in my heart. I used to volunteer in the Children’s Zoo, and was an active member of the Zoologists of Tomorrow and Junior Zoologists Clubs when I was younger. I couldn’t imagine a better place to spend one’s day and, though I think I was beginning to question some of the ethics of the confinement of the animals, even at a very young age, I didn’t let it worry or bother me.
These days, I visit the zoo with very ambivalent feelings and often leave with a heavy heart. While it is true that many (if not most) of our zoos today are strongly invested in conservation and educational efforts, one really must consider, in a thoughtful and mindful way, how these facilities are run, and decide if the suffering of the individual animals is worth what administrators hope to eventually achieve some time (perhaps far) into the future.
I hadn’t been to the zoo in awhile, so yesterday when I was off work I decided to go and walk around for a couple of hours. I enjoy almost any animal – feathered, furred, or scaled – but when I go to the zoo with a limited amount of time, I make sure I stop by the elephants, the birdhouse, and the polar bears, if I see nothing else. My first stop, at the area where the elephants are kept, set the tone for the entire visit. There was a loud crackling sound every few seconds at the perimeter of the enclosure, which sounded like the electric fencing the zoo uses. I’ve not heard it before, or at least I’ve never heard it at this zoo before, and it was distracting as well as troublesome. One of the elephants was swinging from side-to-side, much like can be seen depicted in films where they are chained by the foot and unable to walk freely. I remember when the elephants were regularly kept in the small cages in the old elephant house and chained, they made this constant side-to-side movement. It reminded me that these animals don’t belong in this zoo; they belong in the wild, and that we are robbing them of so much by holding them captive.
But what I found even more disheartening, perhaps, was in the birdhouse just a short distance from the elephant house. There is a lovely room in this building where many different birds fly free where I love to sit. After awhile, a bird or two (yesterday it was a particular red-capped cardinal) takes an interest and tries to dive bomb me repeatedly, or will come over and sit on the rail near my seat and check me out. These birds are curious and engaged with one another and the visitors. Outside the doors, down the hallway, and just around the corner, though, in a darkened hallway is a series of 3 small exhibits, 2 of which contain 1 bird each, and the middle of which contains several. The first one is the one that I was particularly drawn to, and which left me nearly in tears.
The enclosure is a small one, glass-fronted with the remaining 3 walls painted black. There is a group of lights in the upper front portion of the cage trained, like spotlights, on a bare tree situated in the center. I say bare because, although there were leaves and some pretty pinkish and white flowers, they were actually artificial; a close look revealed their plastic connections to the tree branches. Sitting in the center of the tree was a small, beautiful blue bird with a reddish-orange beak. I’d love to tell you what he was, but there was no identifying placard. I believe he might have been in the Kingfisher family. He peered at me as I approached the glass, tilted his head, and sang. I couldn’t hear his song, because of the glass, but I saw the lovely blue feathers on his throat puff out and his long beak open just the slightest.
I was deeply ashamed to see that bird in that cold, dark enclosure. I was ashamed for my zoo and I was ashamed for the whole of the human race. It was clear that no thought went into the welfare of that bird, that he had been positioned there for no other reason than to sell the exhibit. He had fake foliage, no companions, no space to fly and, no one to hear his voice and, to top it off, no identity.
How many others are living in the same condition?

The Loss of Harambe

The following was posted on my wordpress site on May 29, 2016.  I am reposting it here and have added some additional commentary and follow-up regarding the actions The Cincinnati Zoo has taken since this horrific incident in May of last year. 

On Saturday, May 28th, 2016, the Cincinnati Zoo’s Dangerous Animal Response Team shot and killed Harambe, a 17-year-old Western lowland silverback Gorilla, one of the world’s critically endangered animals.
Harambe was transferred to The Cincinnati Zoo from the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville, TX in September, 2014 and is a captive born gorilla.
Although the complete story is still sketchy, all news outlets – local, national, and international – are reporting that a 4-year-old boy breached the barrier to the gorilla enclosure, fell down approximately 10-12 feet into the moat that separates the public from the area the animals populate, and was approached by Harambe. After a short time, he dragged the boy to the far end of the moat and, when the security team arrived, they made the decision to shoot and kill the gorilla instead of tranquilizing him, for the safety of the child. The child was then retrieved and taken to Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was conscious and talking to paramedics, with reported scratches and a bump on the head.
A couple of videos and news stories are worth watching/reading:
As one might imagine, public reaction to this story was immediate and visceral. Reactions range from concern for the well-being of the child to sadness for the loss of Harambe to outright rage toward both the adults responsible for this child and the zoo, for having a penetrable barrier and a solution that was simply not good enough in so many peoples’ eyes.
I had several reactions, all at once, and am still processing the jumble of thoughts and emotions this triggered in me. I think it’s important when something like this happens and we are not there, we are not witness to it, that we are cautious about not only our own reaction to our feelings and how we care for ourselves during these times, but also how we think about and react to others.
A number of news stories on this incident report that, before crossing the barrier and falling into the moat, witnesses heard the child express an interest in going into the water and that the mother had both heard and responded to him by telling him “no.” One story also mentions that the mother accompanying this child had a total of six children with her. There was no mention of another adult chaperone, and no other news agency has reported on the parent or guardians. Many folks have commented both that the mother is to blame for not supervising her son and that one cannot and should not blame the mother, as it is very easy to become separated from a child in public. While I am going to withhold specific blame in this case for the parents until I get more specific details, I do think it sounds like there was a serious lack of supervision that led to the injury of this little boy and the death of this beautiful animal.
The Cincinnati Zoo’s response to the introduction of a human boy into Harambe’s environ is deeply regrettable, but I’m not certain they had another option. Maynard admitted that the young boy was not being harmed while with Harambe, but he believed he was in potential danger.
“You’re talking about an animal that’s over 400 pounds and
extremely strong. So no, the child wasn’t under attack but all
sorts of things could happen in a situation like that. He certainly
was at risk,” Maynard tells WLWT.

Many people did not understand why the Response Team chose a lethal kill over the use of tranquilizers. It took 10 minutes for Security to arrive and it is reported that the child was in the enclosure for 10-15 minutes. We can speculate, in hindsight, what they should have done but, in fact, they had moments to make a decision. Harambe, a 400lb wild animal, fairly new to the zoo and (as can be seen in the video) somewhat agitated by all that was going on, was hands-on with the 4-year-old that had entered his territory. Not under attack, but potentially at risk. Shooting him with a tranquilizer gun would have startled him, probably increasing his agitation, and the effects of the tranquilizing agent would have taken a couple minutes to take effect.

It’s a tragedy, any way you look at it.
There was one foolproof way to have prevented it, though.  If Harambe had never been a captive gorilla, on display for thousands of people to walk by and point and shout at, he would never have come in contact with this 4-year-old boy and no one would have had to make the tragic decision to shoot and kill him. That is fact.
And to even suggest, as some have, that Harambe didn’t suffer, yesterday or during his entire life in captivity is a shameful statement.
Zoos are being touted as institutions of conservation and education.  And The Cincinnati Zoo has been better than most in both of these efforts. But as a lifelong supporter of this zoo, as someone who was active in youth programs there, volunteered there, attended many behind-the-scenes events there I have, over the last several years, begun to grow into a new understanding of what zoos are to the animals they hold captive. And I’ve come to see the zoo from the perspective of the animal and, equally as important, I think, I’ve begun to rethink our methods of conservation.
Now, when I go to the zoo, I can’t see past the swaying elephants and the pacing cats.  The animals that are chewing the bars of their cages and the solitary birds that are kept in darkened, cramped quarters with no room to fly and plastic foliage, pretty and on display for our pleasure. Now, when I go to the zoo, tears fill my eyes when I see tiny terrarium after terrarium filled with snakes and frogs and lizards, destined to live life in a 12×6 in glass cell. Now, when I go to the zoo, I hear people talk about conservation, but I see common birds and reptiles, captive, not to conserve, but to exhibit as museum pieces for profit.
Harambe, like many others, was born a captive to remain a captive until death. Is this conservation?
Metta to all who remain captive.
March, 2017 – Follow-up commentary
The little boy who fell into the enclosure was taken to Children’s Hospital, but not seriously injured.  Investigation by local authorities determined that the parents – and the mother, in particular – would not be charged in the incident, even though there was an international outcry after the gorilla was shot and killed. 
Some of the more thoughtful commentary after the incident by experts in the fields of zoology, conservation, and anthropology focused on where we should be moving in terms of conservation and education in the future and what place zoos have in society.  A particularly interesting one, worth listening to is here, The Future of Zoos:
The barrier which was breached by the child has since been further secured and a sign has been added by the zoo, not only at the gorilla enclosure, but at similar barriers all around the zoo. The USDA had not found the zoo non-compliant in earlier inspections. 
 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/11/17/report-cincy-zoos-gorilla-barrier-wasnt-compliance/94025422/

There will be a great deal more to say about this and similar incidents in future blogs.

Metta to all.

Defining Suffering

     Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines suffering in the following way: “…pain that is caused by injury, illness, loss, etc. : physical, mental, or emotional pain.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suffering 
     The Cambridge Dictionary defines suffering as “physical or mental pain.”  http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/suffering

     Although all of the world’s many religious and spiritual communities have their own beliefs about who suffers, and the causes and remedies for that suffering, there is not a lot of disagreement among the educated and compassionate that all sentient beings do experience physical and emotional pain.  The human body is subject to physical injury and in all but rare cases, the physiological reaction to such injury is pain. The same holds true for animals. There hasn’t been a study conducted or published by a reputable scientist to show that animals do not feel pain.

    Many people on a very basic level, though, struggle with this notion and also – even more so – with the idea that animals can and do suffer in similar ways that humans do on an emotional level. I personally wonder if this is a protective device, a kind of rationalizing people use; it would be difficult – for some, anyway – to enjoy a cheeseburger or plate of lobster if you thought the cow that was slaughtered for the meat or the lobster that was boiled alive actually felt any real pain, or that their babies suffered any true grief at losing their moms.

    Many, if not most people, choose not to think about how the meat gets on their plates or what the dairy cow goes through when she’s no longer able to produce any more milk.  Most people don’t think about the hours that the cows and pigs spend crammed into overloaded trucks on hot highways on the way to the slaughterhouse.  Most don’t think about the minutes they spend before being killed, smelling those killed before them.

    Many people don’t think about the rabbits that are restrained while cosmetics are smeared on their eyeballs, to make sure they are safe for us.  Or the monkeys whose brains are exposed for testing and left exposed, while they are observed.  Or the beagles who are bred and raised to become test subjects in labs. Many people don’t realize that all of these animals, after being cut open while awake, while suffering unimaginable pain and suffering for days, weeks, and months, sometimes years, are then killed and discarded like the week’s trash.  And almost no one understands that most of this unregulated and non compulsory “research” yields NOTHING new and NOTHING useful to humans. And sometimes, it leads to incorrect and fatal results.

    There are always alternatives, though, and there is always something we can do. We can decide not to participate in activities that create more suffering in the world and we can spread the word about those products, companies, individuals, industries, and behaviors that promote it. We can research the alternatives, insist companies utilize them, lobby and petition for the government and companies to stop needless animal testing and the use of animals in their products, and boycott companies that participate in activities and produce products that create such suffering. We can pledge to follow a diet that is cruelty-free, and to live a more cruel-free lifestyle.  There is always something we can do.

    Metta to all.

Welcome to Suffering for Us

    Thank you for visiting Suffering for Us, a new and – hopefully – weekly blog dedicated to the exploration of our use and exploitation of animals in a variety of industries including, but not limited to circuses, zoos, fashion, cosmetics, medicine, entertainment, and agriculture.

     This blog will probably be different from many sites that you’ve seen that have dealt with this issue. While I lean very strongly (to the point of tipping over) on the side of animals in all cases when pitted against humans, I also believe that there is value in listening and hearing all sides of an argument. My purpose here will be to research and present those sides and, in some cases, to work through my own biases and ambivalence, but always to find the resolution that results in the least amount of suffering.

     My own ethics are centered in basic Buddhist philosophy, but I also have a strong connection to earth-based spirituality. Although this is a personal blog and much of what I write here will likely emanate from my own beliefs and experiences, I am interested in exploring other perceptions as well. We cannot come to a consensus of how we can help make this a better world if we don’t understand each other’s ideas and views.

     If you have topics you’d like to see discussed or suggestions for issues you think would benefit from more research, drop me an email or a comment and I will see what I can do. I am especially interested in working to decrease the number of wild animals in captivity and stories that will support that mission would also be greatly appreciated.

     I will be making a liberal use of photos, videos, and links throughout the blog. Photos and videos are all my own and under copyright unless otherwise stated, and may not be copied or printed and used for anything other than personal enrichment unless prior written permission is obtained from me.

      I welcome – and encourage – comments, positive and critical, and discussion, whether or not you agree with what I’m saying, but I will not tolerate abusive language or attacks, toward me or anyone else who comments here. Those types of comments will be deleted. I’m interested in facilitating greater understanding about these issues and dialogue that will stimulate critical thinking around the issue of suffering and, in turn, a deeper compassion for animals and for the humans who so egregiously harm them.

     Once again, thank you for visiting, and I hope you will continue on this journey with me.

    With metta (loving-kindness),

    Diane

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started