Exposing the Big Game

Forget Hunters' Feeble Rationalizations and Trust Your Gut Feelings: Making Sport of Killing Is Not Healthy Human Behavior

Exposing the Big Game

Trump repeals Alaskan bear hunting regs

Trump repeals Alaskan bear hunting regs
© Getty Images

President Trump rolled back a trio of regulations Monday, including protections for hibernating bears in Alaska.

The Obama-era rule from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) prohibited certain hunting tactics that target “predator” animals likes bears and wolves while they are inside Alaska’s national preserves. This included a ban on hunters using airplanes.

Trump overturned the rule Monday, handing control of the hunting regulations over to Alaska state officials who have shown an eagerness to control predator populations as a way to protect other animals such as deer. But animal rights activists say this will open the door to hunters snatching hibernating bears and wolves out of their dens, or even killing them in front of their cubs.

The president also rolled back the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Internet privacy rules and the Labor Department’s workplace protections that required companies to report injuries and illnesses that occur on the job.

Vegan Lifestyle Becoming More Common

https://theimpactnews.com/news/2017/03/09/veganisim-a-lifestyle-worth-considering/

 A vegan diet used to be a foreign concept for the regular American in a regular household. It was more of the lifestyle someone who decided to move to the woods and be in hiatus  of the world would adapt. However, the picture has changed over the years.

And now a change of diet may be absolutely necessary in protecting the planet from Greenhouse Emissions causing global warming, according to some experts.

Vegans now have countless food options and information available. Restaurants often have at least a vegan section and there is even vegan options for products other than food. It is fairly easy to have a full and healthy vegan lifestyle today.

But what does it mean to be vegan? And why would someone chose this lifestyle?

According to PETA, “a vegan (strict vegetarian) does not consume meat, diary products, eggs, honey or any product delivered from an animal.” This includes food, clothing, furniture, personal care and house hold items, and everything in between. Unlike a vegetarian, a vegan lifestyle goes beyond food. Every product used and/or purchases as well as any activity one takes part in, should not come from, be made out of, tested on or jeopardize an animal life.

For years, it has been assumed that diary, meat and eggs are the main sources of protein, but it turns out it is just a marketing strategy, for there are significant amounts of protein in other foods. An adult or depleting child can get all the nutrients and protein they need from a plant base diet, while maintaining good health.

According to Harvard University, vegans have a lower risk of suffering of heart disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes. It has also be proved to help with weight loss and an overall healthier lifestyle.

Another huge reason to become a vegan is living a sustainable lifestyle and helping to reduce climate change. According to the world watch institute, “Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (C02) per year, or 51 percent of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide are some of the gases that contribute to the Greenhouse Effect.Many skeptics have been critical that that big environmental agencies, who exist for the protection of the one and only planet humans have, do not fully accept this theory on climate change.

Using less water and oil, recycling, being counties of energy used help as well, but the biggest impact can be made by switching to a vegan lifestyle. According to World Watch,  “Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed out 565 cigatonnes C02E limit by 2030, all from raising animals.”

Some feel that the planet has been so deeply damaged that baby steps won’t work, and a bigger change is needed to save the planet. Helping the environment is not only a choice everyone benefits from but also future generations. Regardless of nationality, humans share the same air and space. It is beyond personal choices. One’s reckless and careless choices can directly impact many others.

According to “Conspiracy” the infamous documentary on this issue, “A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50 percent less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/12th water, 1/18th land compared to a meat eater and saves one animal’s life a day.” One person’s choices have a huge impact on the resources that could potentially be wasted on a product that is not necessary for human life or wellbeing.

The question is, can college students have a vegan lifestyle on a realistic budget?

The answer is yes, just as any other student trying to save money; it’s all about being smart with spending and money in general.

Being vegan doesn’t necessarily mean shopping at expensive organic supermarkets and spending a lot on money on food. Just be informed and learn how to read labels. It is probable that a portion of one’s diet is already vegan, so it doesn’t have to be such a drastic change.

Most restaurants offer a vegan section, and there are even entirely vegan restaurants now. There are numerous food choices.

As far as clothing and households items, it simply takes some research. Most brands now would include the word “vegan” on the packaging as well.

For residents, the cafeterias offer some vegan; options, however, are limited.

Annabella Alvarado, a Vet Tech major and a sophomore, says “I became a vegan once I realized the impact factory farming has on our environment. Mercy offers vegan/vegetarian options everyday, but what I did was change my meal plan to all dining dollars and that allows me to set up my own meals.”

There are also restaurants close to campus, like “Tomatillo” or “Mix on Main” with affordable vegan options as well, ranging from about $7 to $20. It is also easy to customize meals at restaurants to make them vegan.

Amy Morales, a Music Technology major and a senior, says “I gave up meat about two years ago just to try it out; after a month I really liked how my body felt. I feel a lot healthier now.”

Whether it is because of the health benefits, morals, or because your want to live a more sustainable life and help the planet, veganism is a life style worth considering.

Chimpanzees are animals. But are they ‘persons’?

March 16

The appellate division of the New York Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday on behalf of two captive plaintiffs — both of them chimpanzees.

Their self-appointed attorney, the crusading animal-rights lawyer Steven Wise, will once again be making the case that U.S. law should not consider the apes things, but rather “legal persons” that have a right to bodily liberty.

It’s an argument that, if successful, could lead to revolutionary changes in legal status for animals. But it’s one that has so far failed to convince judges.

The chimps in question at this week’s hearing are Tommy and Kiko, both of which are held by private owners in New York, according to Wise’s group, the Nonhuman Rights Project. In a bid to persuade courts to recognize the animals as “legal persons,” the group has filed writs of habeas corpus, which would allow the chimps to challenge the legality of their detention in court. Any court that granted such a writ would be acknowledging the ape’s legal “personhood” — and right to be free.

Courts have already granted personhood to other non-humans, which is not the same as declaring them people, Wise often notes. Corporations can be legal persons, as can ships. On Wednesday, New Zealand’s parliament officially recognized the Whanganui River as a legal person. And so far, courts have been willing to at least listen to Wise’s arguments on behalf of chimps, if not rule in their favor.

Despite the defeats, Wise said he was encouraged by a 2015 state Supreme Court ruling that rejected his group’s arguments but called the quest “understandable” and acknowledged that the definition of legal personhood has evolved over time. But the judge in that case said she was bound by a higher court’s previous ruling that chimpanzees could not be granted legal rights because they’re unable to bear “legal responsibilities and societal duties.”

Wise says that’s wrong for a couple of reasons that he plans to present on Thursday. First, he said, he’ll argue that legal personhood does not require the ability to assume duties or responsibilities — children cannot do so, for example, nor can some Alzheimer’s patients.

“No other court has said you have to have the capacity to assume duties and responsibilities in order to be a legal person and have rights,” Wise said. “In fact, millions of people in the state of New York can’t assume duties and responsibilities. But I assure you they aren’t legal things.”

If that argument doesn’t work, Wise says he has a backup: Sixty pages of affidavits from six experts on the behavior and cognition of chimpanzees, including the famous primatologist Jane Goodall. They present evidence that these highly intelligent animals can — and do — assume duties and responsibilities in their own societies and in chimp-human “societies” created for research purposes.

CONTENT FROM THE CLEVELAND CLINIC
What “patient-first” care really looks like
Empathy is the guiding principle behind the entire patient experience at Cleveland Clinic’s new Cancer Center. Take a tour.

 

“They just give example after example,” Wise said of the affidavits. “For example, when a chimpanzee band crosses a road, a male will go to the front and another male will go to the back and allow others to cross. And when they engage in hunts, they each have separate duties. They each have to do their job.”

But, unlike most humans, chimps clearly can’t be held accountable for not doing their societal duties, which is one reason some legal scholars reject Wise’s argument. Critics also warn of a slippery slope that could theoretically lead to the prohibition of all pet-keeping.

Wise said the goal at this point is to get Tommy and Kiko sent to a sanctuary — an outcome that, so far, New York courts have not come close to letting happen. (It did happen recently in Argentina, where a judge ruled that a chimpanzee named Cecilia had “non-human rights” and must be transferred from the zoo where she lived to a sanctuary.)

But the Nonhuman Rights Project has plans to see if other American states’ courts might be more open to the idea. Wise said the group is preparing a case on behalf of an elephant in a state that is not New York, eyeing the case of some chimpanzees in California and “looking very closely” at orcas owned by SeaWorld.

Read more:

These chimps helped save human lives. Then they were abandoned.

DNA evidence helps free a service dog from death row

A proposal to bring back grizzlies just got a funny boost

Today’s Animal Rights Headlines

‘Horrific’: Animal rights groups slam Norway for killing pregnant whales
https://www.rt.com/news/380105-norway-kills-pregnant-whales/
“Animal rights groups have slammed Norway for slaughtering pregnant
whales, calling it “even more unacceptable” as they carry the next
generation of the mammals. The criticism follows a new documentary
featuring the murder of female whales carrying a fetus.
“The documentary film dubbed ‘The Battle of Agony’, about the killing
of pregnant whales, was released on NRK, a public television network,
earlier in March.
““The majority of common minke whales caught in Norway have a fetus in
their bellies,” the film said.”

Seafood company convicted of animal cruelty for improperly killing lobster
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/03/10/seafood-company-convicted-animal-cruelty-for-improperly-killing-lobster.html
“The Nicholas Seafoods company of Sydney, Australia, is in hot water
with an animal rights group for causing “immense pain” to one of its
catches.
“Australia’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(RSPCA) reportedly observed workers from Nicholas butchering lobsters
with a band saw, before properly stunning or killing the crustaceans,
reports The Guardian.”

Animal rights protest shuts down major CBD intersection
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/animal-rights-protest-shuts-down-major-cbd-intersection-20170311-guw0bs.html
“About 600 protesters demanding the closure of Australian
slaughterhouses have shut down a major intersection in the CBD.
“The rally, organised by Animal Liberation Victoria, began on the
steps of Parliament House about midday on Saturday, before hundreds
marched down Bourke Street to occupy the intersection at Swanston
Street.”

Berkeley animal rights activist faces federal charges
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/03/09/berkeley-animal-rights-activist-races-federal-charges/
“A Berkeley resident and animal rights activist is facing federal
charges for allegedly entering a restricted area at a Bernie Sanders
rally in Modesto on June 2.
“The federal government alleged in a criminal complaint last month
that Paul Picklesimer, a member of the animal rights group Direct
Action Everywhere, boosted another activist into a sanctioned-off area
in front of the stage at the Sanders’ rally and then entered the area
himself. He is facing up to a year in jail or a fine of $100,000.”

Super-size problem

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/magazines/2017/03-04/super-size-problem-broiler-chickens.html?referrer=https://outlook.live.com/

Americans’ demand for cheap meat has forced factory-farm broiler chickens to grow faster and larger than ever before

All Animals magazine, March/April 2017

by Karen Lange

  • Click or tap the image to enlarge.

Fresh from the trauma of World War II, mid-century Americans imagined a peaceful, prosperous future. They dreamed of moon rockets and flying cars. They envisioned house-cleaning robots. And, after years of rationing, they hoped for bountiful meals. Most particularly, they hungered for chicken. But not the scrawny, spent laying hens, exhausted from their lives producing eggs, that Americans ate when beef and pork were scarce. Instead, they looked forward to the bird of the future—bigger, better.

The A&P grocery chain invited poultry producers to enter a nationwide contest. Farmers sent eggs from their plumpest birds to a U.S. Department of Agriculture station on Maryland’s eastern shore. Researchers selected and bred birds who were larger and faster- growing to create a new type of chicken, “a broad-breasted bird with bigger drumsticks, plumper thighs and layers of white meat,” according to writer and broadcaster Lowell Thomas, who narrated a documentary sponsored by Texaco. It would be, proclaimed the film’s title, “The Chicken of Tomorrow.”

Over decades, America got all that and more.

As the winning chicks, hatched in 1948, were used to breed the strains now used by large-scale commercial farms, the time needed to raise a “broiler”—a chicken raised for meat—dropped from 12 weeks to six or less, the feed required fell by half and the growth rate multiplied by four. The amount of breast meat on an individual bird rose by nearly 70 percent. By 1978, a pound of chicken, which in 1922 had cost around $5.50 in today’s dollars, cost just $2.46. Per capita, chicken consumption grew four-fold, and a whole new industry emerged, dominated by factory farms controlled by corporations such as Tyson and Pilgrim’s Pride.

  • At 56 days old, when chickens are typically sent to slaughter, today’s broilers are much larger than broilers of the past. Photo by Poultry Science Association.

A recent paper shows the consequences: Scientists at a research farm in Alberta that has continued to breed earlier strains of chickens took pictures of a 1956 type broiler, a 1978 broiler and a 2005 broiler, all 8 weeks old, and placed the photos side by side. The result is unsettling: On the left, a comparatively fit bird (1956), in the center a plump chicken (1978) who appears “normal” (if you don’t know how chickens used to look), and on the right, the “chicken of tomorrow,” a morbidly obese bird (2005) who appears monstrous next to the others. By modern standards, she’s a week or two past the date when she would be slaughtered for meat, and she’s at high risk for heart failure. She’s a juvenile, but the size of her body has outgrown the capacity of her bones and joints, muscles and organs to support it, says John Webster, professor emeritus of animal husbandry at the University of Bristol.

“If [broilers] weren’t killed at 42 days, they wouldn’t survive another two weeks,” he says.

During the last days of their lives, about a third of broiler chickens suffer leg problems so severe they struggle to walk. Factory-farm workers move through buildings to collect dead birds and break the necks of lame ones. Survivors huddle on the floor, trapped by their own bodies. Unable to escape the pain, they lie in litter strewn with their own waste. Ammonia burns their breasts and often blisters their skin and feet.

In 2016, The HSUS launched a campaign to end these kind of conditions. In June, Perdue became the first major producer to commit to reform. Major buyers followed.

The initiative comes after years of research have documented the suffering produced by the birds’ genetics. Before joining HSUS-affiliate Humane Society International, Sara Shields studied whether farmers could encourage broilers to dustbathe and improve their welfare through increased exercise. But she found that because of their size, dustbathing was not enough, and by the time the birds approached the market weight they did not engage in much behavior beyond sitting and eating.

What has taken place is the opposite of Darwinian selection, Webster says. “They’ve destroyed the fitness of the bird in order to produce the most meat.”

With approximately 9 billion broilers raised and slaughtered each year in the U.S. alone (60 billion worldwide), Webster calls the broiler industry the single greatest example of human inhumanity toward another animal. It’s why Shields chose chickens as the subject of her doctoral dissertation.

“If an animal only has six weeks to live, it’s really important that they have a positive experience,” she says, “because that’s all they’ve got—six weeks.”

Chickens raised for meat spend their days in dark barns where they often sit on the floor in their own waste. Photo by Mercy for Animals.

But to improve quality of life, breeders must change broiler genetics so birds grow more slowly and can live longer, Webster, Shields and other experts say. Fortunately, breeders still have small supplies of slower- growing chicks that can be used to reform the industry. In the United Kingdom, grocery stores competing for customers are already selling birds that take 10 weeks to reach market weight. In the United States, at the urging of The HSUS and other animal welfare groups, producers and buyers are beginning to shift toward this. There is also hope that researchers can eventually breed a faster-growing bird that is healthy and walks without pain.

The HSUS has worked with Perdue, one of the country’s largest producers, to develop a reform plan that includes changing the type of broilers farmers raise and offering birds more room. Late in 2016, the five largest food service companies in the country, which together buy more than 115 million chickens a year—Compass Group, Sodexo, Aramark, Delaware North and Centerplate—announced with The HSUS that by 2024 they will adopt a new Global Animal Partnership standard for healthier breeds of chickens, better living conditions and increased space per bird.

Starbucks and Panera Bread have announced a similar policy. Aside from ensuring better lives for the chickens, the companies are also mandating a slaughter method that avoids excessively inhumane practices and instead uses a multistep controlled-atmosphere processing system that renders chickens unconscious so they suffer less.

Josh Balk, HSUS vice president of farm animal protection, says the organization is meeting with other major companies. “It will take years to make these changes happen,” he says. “We have to start now.”

Modern broilers are raised in starkly different ways: Factory farms stock the fastest- growing birds, while some smaller farms let slower-growing birds roam outside. As The HSUS transforms the industry, bigger farms will switch to healthier birds able to lead better lives, even if they are still indoors.

  • Due to their unnatural size, many chickens suffer painful injuries and are unable to walk. Photo by Compassion Over Killing.

Suffering silently

Walk into one of the windowless, dimly lit factory farms where most U.S. broilers are raised, and you’re likely to see tens of thousands of obese birds, barely stirring, sitting on the floor in their own waste. They have been selected for massive appetites, bred to eat and sit. Many of the birds have painful leg and joint problems that make walking difficult. They’re confined so close together that they jostle one another. This, plus the absence of a natural light-dark cycle, prevents sleep, which is critical for young, growing animals. It’s a scene of quiet misery. There’s a stench of ammonia. The birds’ bodies are on the brink of giving out. So extreme is the stress that in order for breeder broilers to survive long enough to lay eggs (about 20 weeks), producers must restrict their feed intake, sometimes feeding them only every other day. Broilers raised to be eaten usually die at 6 weeks, says Shields. “They still peep like baby chicks when they’re slaughtered.”

Ranging freely

The chickens at White Oaks Pastures, owned by HSUS state agriculture advisory council member Will Harris in Bluffton, Georgia, are very different because of their genetics, behavior and environment. Place a factory farm broiler outside to forage for food and move with a flock, and that chicken probably would not survive, Harris says. Using chicks who genetically resemble birds from the 1950s, Harris puts his birds out on pasture to do what chickens evolved to: search out insects and other edible morsels by scratching the soil, all the while fertilizing dirt with their manure. They walk miles each day before they roost in mobile houses that are towed to different spots. At 12 weeks, they reach 3 to 4 pounds and are slaughtered on the farm. The price consumers pay, via the White Oak Pastures website, is around $4 per pound—more than three times what conventional chicken meat costs. It’s a struggle to find people to spend that, says Harris, who has turned a profit with pasture-raised cows and pigs but not so far with chickens: “Consumers will either support humane production, and it will thrive, or they will not, and it will perish.”

On Will Harris’ farm in Georgia, broiler chickens grow at a healthier rate and have room to roam. Photo by Julie Busch Branaman/For The HSUS.

A more humane future

The HSUS is encouraging producers to breed healthier broilers who live free from pain and engage in typical chicken behaviors— in other words, to be like chickens were until the push for maximum efficiency altered their genetic makeup. Given a modest increase in space (at least 1 square foot per six pounds of animal) along with more natural light, better litter quality and hay bales, their lives will be substantially altered. They will walk around, dust bathe, peck and perch. For the birds, a lifetime of misery will be turned into an existence that allows for a little bit of pleasure. Webster, the professor in the U.K., has seen it happen. Chickens there live in conditions that allow them to demonstrate their intelligence and engaging personalities. When a human visitor arrives, they rush forward to great him. “The big movement is to get a better bird,” he says. “Once you’ve got a better bird, you can give it a better life.”

Tom Regan, Pioneer Animal Rights Philosopher Died February 17 But His Work & Influence Endure

By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns*

“My tribute to philosopher Tom Regan, who wrote The Case For Animal Rights,
and*
*who died on February 17, 2017 after a battle with Parkinson’s Disease, is
a*
*slightly expanded version of the Comment I posted yesterday morning to
Merritt*
*Clifton’s beautifully composed obituary for Tom in Animals 24-7 which you
can*
*read here: Tom Regan, 78, made the case for animal rights
<http://www.animals24-7.org/2017/02/18/tom-regan-78-made-the-case-for-animal-rights>.*

Thank you Merritt Clifton for your informative tribute to animal rights
philosopher Tom Regan, whom I met in the early 1980s right around the time
that
his book *The Case For Animal Rights* was published in 1983. Since that
book was
more academic than Peter Singer’s *Animal Liberation*, published in 1975,
was, it
probably was more dipped into by activists than read cover to cover. But
Regan
transcended Singer by arguing that nonhuman animals have not only
“interests”
but RIGHTS and INHERENT VALUE. Sentient beings, in his famous phrase, are
Subjects-of-a-Life in the sense that “their experiential life fares well or
ill
for them, logically independently of their utility for others and logically
independently of their being the object of anyone else’s interests.”

Accordingly, he wrote that nonhuman animals “have a distinctive kind of
value
– inherent value – and are not to be viewed or treated as mere
receptacles,” a
point he stressed at length in *The Case For Animal Rights* and throughout
his
career.

In later years, Regan criticized Singer’s acquiescence in scientific
experiments
on nonhuman animals if the experiments were claimed by the experimenters to
have
a potential to save more HUMAN lives or to mitigate more HUMAN diseases.
Regan
challenged the media’s reflexive reference to Singer as the “father of
animal
rights” which, he said in a discussion about making monkeys suffer for human
benefit, is not so. He wrote: “The Peter Singer interviewed on the BBC2
program
does not believe that nonhuman animals have basic moral rights. As early as
1978, three years after the publication of Animal Liberation, he explicitly
disavowed this belief.” (Tom Regan Replies to Peter Singer
<http://animalfreedom.org/english/column/peter_singer.html>)

Tom Regan in his work following *The Case For Animal Rights* evinced a
lyrical
gift, writing expressively and movingly about animals and about his own
early
life in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and his evolution from being an avid
boyhood
fisherman and meat eater to becoming a passionate vegan advocate for
animals and
animal rights.

A True Pioneer

Tom Regan is a true pioneer of the Animal Rights Movement. He laid
philosophical
groundwork even for those who may not now know him as well as they should
and, I
hope, will. Regan had an emotional and artistic sensibility which he
combined
with his academic polemics to produce powerful speaking and writing for
animals
and animal rights.

I attended his outdoor presentations in the 1980s and later, where he said
of
the Establishment versus himself: “They say we’re EXTREMISTS for caring
about
animals! I AM an EXTREMIST. I am EXTREMELY against animal abuse, and I am
against it All the Time!”

This is a paraphrase of a speech I heard him give one year. It was
passionate
and fiery and interesting too when you compare that oratory with his
earliest
foray into animal rights in a clip from The Animals Film
<http://www.theanimalsfilm.com> where he appears
reading from a paper with his head down, but delivering words that echo in
all
of us who are working for animals and animal rights to this day and always
will.

I am eternally grateful to Professor Tom Regan for his establishment, in
philosophy and the arts, of the case for animal rights. And I am honored by
his
kind words of appreciation for my own animal rights work through United
Poultry
Concerns in his 2013 Interview with the Eugene Veg Education Network, which
you
can – and must! – read here:

Eugene Veg Education Network Interview with Tom Regan
<http://www.eugeneveg.org/pdf/Interviews/Interview-Tom_Regan.pdf>