by Michael Markarian / July 28, 2008 @ 11:59 AM

Last month I wrote about the agribusiness interests opposing Proposition 2 — masquerading as the deceptively named Californians for Safe Food — and their record of duping the public, harming animals, and polluting the environment. Their top funder to date, Moark LLC, paid to settle criminal cruelty charges for using a conveyor belt to throw live birds into a Dumpster. Another major backer, United Egg Producers, paid to settle false advertising allegations brought by 17 attorneys general related to misleading claims about animal welfare.

Yet another top contributor, Gemperle Enterprises, was exposed in an undercover investigation that showed birds with their wings and necks stuck in wire cages, and workers violently ripping birds out of cages without any regard for their welfare. The video even showed an employee swinging a bird around by her neck and throwing her against a wall, and another worker stomping on a hen and kicking her into a manure pit where she presumably drowned.

Apparently that sordid cast of characters wasn’t enough. Before you donate to the No on Prop 2 campaign, do you have to check a box that asks whether you or your company have been caught abusing animals, polluting the environment, or lying to consumers about animal welfare?

This week, residents of the Central Valley announced their intent to sue Olivera Egg Ranch over the toxic pollution coming from the facility. This giant factory farm confines 600,000 - 700,000 hens in cramped, barren, wire cages and dumps the manure into multi-acre cesspools that release more than 100 pounds of ammonia every day. Residents have complained of sore throats, upper respiratory infections, coughing, vomiting, and gagging attacks because of the noxious smell and pollution near their homes. Olivera, of course, has donated to the No on Prop 2 campaign.

The campaign got another injection of funds last week from Foster Farms, which dumped a quarter-million dollars into the fight. Foster has also been accused of making false claims about animal welfare in its advertising, and the Better Business Bureau referred the case to the Federal Trade Commission for review.

The agribusiness giants are building their war chest, bankrolled almost entirely by corporate interests that put their profits ahead of animal welfare, the environment, and consumers. They are not only liars, but also outliers within their own industry.

The YES! On Prop 2 campaign, on the other hand, is backed by thousands of individual Californians, as well as respected groups like the Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Union of Concerned Scientists, and California Veterinary Medical Association.

Don’t let the outliers dupe California voters. We need your help to get the word out to Californians up and down the state, and let them know the truth about factory farming. Watch this important new video about Prop 2, and then make a donation to support the campaign.

The California Majority Report

By Randy Dotinga | July 30, 2008 edition
The Christian Science Monitor

History has forgotten the shocking cruelties unleashed on the animals of Britain in centuries past. But their grim legacy remains in the language we speak.

The word “cockpit” originally referred to the spaces where chickens fought each other to the death. “Bulldogs” – ancestors of today’s pit bulls – attacked enraged bulls in front of bloodthirsty crowds of peasants and aristocrats. Even the word “hangdog,” now used to describe facial expressions, traces its origin to the unhappy fate of canines put on trial.

While many people adored their house pets just as they do now, few cared about the horrors unleashed on animals in a place considered “the world’s cruelest country.” But then humanity began to develop a heart. People started to see animals as something more than property. And cruelty ceased to be seen as a personal right.

“The rescued dogs, cats, rabbits and horses who live with so many of us today ultimately owe their survival” to British reformers, writes Kathryn Shevelow in For the Love of Animals: The Rise of the Animal Protection Movement. These men and women, she writes, “forced the law for the first time to become responsive to the plight of animals.”

“For the Love of Animals” provides a perceptive and eye-opening look at how the British people developed a sense of obligation toward the defenseless creatures in their care. Through vivid anecdotes, Shevelow, who is a professor of British literature at the University of California at San Diego, brings readers on a tour of Britain’s massive contradictions and paints memorable portraits of the motley crew that invented the animal-rights movement.

During Shakespeare’s time, and for centuries afterward, aristocrats adored their coddled lapdogs and fancy birds while half-starved mongrels roamed the streets and children tortured cats in public. Cockfighting and “baiting” – pitting ferocious dogs against creatures ranging from monkeys to ducks – provided popular entertainment for all classes.

Many of the stories of animal abuse in “For the Love of Animals” are disturbing, and Shevelow helpfully advises readers which chapters they can skip to avoid them. Happily, there is also much to appreciate, including tales of the activists who spoke up despite endless ridicule.

Early on, an eccentric duchess dared to question the prevailing assumption that animals are stupid because they can’t speak. Speech isn’t a sign of intelligence considering all the dumb things that people say, she argued. For her troubles (and her feminism), later critics dubbed her “Mad Madge.”

And so it went. A minister who dared to interpret scripture as frowning on animal cruelty was called insane. Members of Parliament who tried to ban bull-baiting were called moralistic meddlers who couldn’t stand the idea of anyone having a good time. What would be next, critics cried, a ban on fox hunting? (Well, yes, but it took until 2004.)

During debate over a law to ban cruelty to horses, members of Parliament howled with glee when someone suggested that dogs might be next. An even wilder notion – the protection of cats – prompted hoots of laughter.
But the voices for animal rights gained influence. They found reasons for mercy in the Bible, in philosophy, and in numerous reform movements, including the fight against slavery.

Shevelow livens her tale with stories of Europe’s obsessions with half-human monsters and complex mechanical animals. She also finds plenty of unusual characters among the reformers, including an early vegetarian who still managed to be fat as a house and Richard “Hair-Trigger Martin,” an Irish leader who challenged a man to a duel over the cold-blooded murder of a gentle wolfhound that didn’t even belong to him.

Despite accusations that he was a “blustering and blundering blockhead,” Mr. Martin founded the influential Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which gained royal patronage in 1840 and remains active to this day.

While Shevelow does a thorough job of tracking the animal-rights movement’s evolution in Britain, she gives short shrift to events elsewhere. US readers are left to research for themselves how the British movement affected animal rights on this side of the pond.

Some readers may find “For the Love of Animals” a bit academic for their tastes, and many will note that the cover photo of an adorable dog on a chair has nothing to do with anything other than savvy marketing.

Overall, however, this book is thought-provoking and inspiring, reminding readers how much has – and hasn’t – changed over the centuries. The animals treasured by so many of us continue to fall victim to cruelty and abuse. But thanks to the efforts of those who withstood withering attacks from naysayers, justice and generosity are forever on their side.

Randy Dotinga is a freelance writer living with a rescued feline in San Diego.

From: Rebecca Langford <mailto:beckyoregon@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Subject: Amazing duck story!

Something really amazing happened in Downtown Spokane this week and I had to share the story with you. Our friend works downtown in a second story office building, overlooking busy Riverside Avenue. Several weeks ago he watched a mother duck choose the cement awning outside his window as the uncanny place to build a nest above the sidewalk. The mallard laid nine eggs in a nest in the corner of the planter that is perched over 10 feet in the air. She dutifully kept the eggs warm for weeks and Monday afternoon all of her nine ducklings hatched.





He worried all night how the mama duck was going to get those babies safely off their perch in a busy, downtown, urban environment to take to water, which typically happens in the first 48 hours of a duck hatching. Tuesday morning, he came to work and watched the mother duck encourage her babies to the edge of the perch with the intent to show them how to jump off!



The mother flew down below and started quacking to her babies above. With disbelief he watched as the first fuzzy newborn toddled to the edge and astonishingly leapt into thin air, crashing onto the cement below. He couldn’t imagine how this might play out. He dashed out of his office and ran down the stairs to the sidewalk where the first obedient duckling was stuporing near its mother from the near fatal fall.



He looked up. The second duckling was getting ready to jump! He quickly dodged under the awning while the mother duck quacked at him and the babies above. As the second one took the plunge, Joel jumped forward and caught it with his bare hands before it hit the cement. Safe and sound, he set it by the mamma and the other stunned sibling, still recovering from its painful leap.



One by one the babies continued to jump to join their anxious family below. Each time our friend hid under the awning just to reach out in the nick of time as the duckling made its free fall. The downtown sidewalk came to a standstill. Time after time, he was able to catch the remaining 7 and set them by their approving mother.



At this point he realized the duck family had only made part of its dangerous journey. They had 2 full blocks to walk across traffic, crosswalks, curbs, and pedestrians to get to the closest open water, the Spokane River. The onlooking office secretaries then joined in, and hurriedly brought an empty copy paper box to collect the babies. They carefully corralled them, with the mother’s approval, and loaded them up into the white cardboard container. Our friend held the box low enough for the mom to see her brood. He then slowly navigated through the downtown streets toward the Spokane River, as the mother waddled behind and kept her babies in sight.



As they reached the river, the mother took over and passed him, jumping into the river and quacking loudly. At the water’s edge, the Sterling Bank office staff then tipped the box and helped shepherd the babies toward the water and to their mother after their adventurous ride.



All nine darling ducklings safely made it into the water and paddled up snugly to mamma duck. He said the mom swam in circles, looking back toward the beaming bank workers, and proudly quacking as if to say,



‘See, we did it! Thanks for all the help!





Thankfully, one of the secretaries had a digital camera and was able to capture most of it (except theactual mid-air catching) in a series of attached photographs. Please join me in celebrating with — Our Downtown Duck Hero!

Rick Bogle — 7/15/2008 5:15 pm

Dear Editor:

I had to chuckle at Phil Haslanger’s understatement that the Dalai Lama’s beliefs can’t be stuffed into tidy boxes.

While the Dalai Lama’s position on Tibet and China appears confused, even more so does his position on compassion for all sentient beings, a hallmark of Buddhism. After his visit here in 2007, he went to Milwaukee and dined on veal.

Madison celebrity Richard Davidson often cites the Dalai Lama’s support for animal experimentation — such as Davidson’s own invasive brain experiments on monkeys — when asked about these experiments during his own public lectures.

It just isn’t clear what the Dalai Lama believes; one day it’s one thing, the next something else. Sometimes he calls for everyone to be kind to animals, and then he turns around and eats them and condones harmful experiments on them.

His beliefs certainly don’t fit into tidy boxes, even the box of compassion.

Rick Bogle

Madison

7/15/2008 5:15 am

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/296154

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: July 13, 2008

If you caught your son burning ants with a magnifying glass, would it bother you less than if you found him torturing a mouse with a soldering iron? How about a snake? How about his sister?

Does Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — the Guantánamo detainee who claims he personally beheaded the reporter Daniel Pearl — deserve the rights he denied Mr. Pearl? Which ones? A painless execution? Exemption from capital punishment? Decent prison conditions? Habeas corpus?

Such apparently unrelated questions arise in the aftermath of the vote of the environment committee of the Spanish Parliament last month to grant limited rights to our closest biological relatives, the great apes — chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans.

The committee would bind Spain to the principles of the Great Ape Project, which points to apes’ human qualities, including the ability to feel fear and happiness, create tools, use languages, remember the past and plan the future. The project’s directors, Peter Singer, the Princeton ethicist, and Paola Cavalieri, an Italian philosopher, regard apes as part of a “community of equals” with humans.

If the bill passes — the news agency Reuters predicts it will — it would become illegal in Spain to kill apes except in self-defense. Torture, including in medical experiments, and arbitrary imprisonment, including for circuses or films, would be forbidden.

The 300 apes in Spanish zoos would not be freed, but better conditions would be mandated.

What’s intriguing about the committee’s action is that it juxtaposes two sliding scales that are normally not allowed to slide against each other: how much kinship humans feel for which animals, and just which “human rights” each human deserves.

We like to think of these as absolutes: that there are distinct lines between humans and animals, and that certain “human” rights are unalienable. But we’re kidding ourselves.

In an interview, Mr. Singer described just such calculations behind the Great Ape Project: he left out lesser apes like gibbons because scientific evidence of human qualities is weaker, and he demanded only rights that he felt all humans were usually offered, such as freedom from torture — rather than, say, rights to education or medical care.

Depending on how it is counted, the DNA of chimpanzees is 95 percent to 98.7 percent the same as that of humans.

Nonetheless, the law treats all animals as lower orders. Human Rights Watch has no position on apes in Spain and has never had an internal debate about who is human, said Joseph Saunders, deputy program director.

“There’s no blurry middle,” he said, “and human rights are so woefully protected that we’re going to keep our focus there.”

Meanwhile, even in democracies, the law accords diminished rights to many humans: children, prisoners, the insane, the senile. Teenagers may not vote, philosophers who slip into dementia may be lashed to their beds, courts can order surgery or force-feeding.

Spain does not envision endowing apes with all rights: to drive, to bear arms and so on. Rather, their status would be akin to that of children.

Ingrid Newkirk, a founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, considers Spain’s vote “a great start at breaking down the species barriers, under which humans are regarded as godlike and the rest of the animal kingdom, whether chimpanzees or clams, are treated like dirt.”

Other commentators are aghast. Scientists, for example, would like to keep using chimpanzees to study the AIDS virus, which is believed to have come from apes.

Mr. Singer responded by noting that humans are a better study model, and yet scientists don’t deliberately infect them with AIDS.

“They’d need to justify not doing that,” he said. “Why apes?”

Spain’s Catholic bishops attacked the vote as undermining a divine will that placed humans above animals. One said such thinking led to abortion, euthanasia and ethnic cleansing.

But given that even some humans are denied human rights, what is the most basic right? To not be killed for food, perhaps?

Ten years ago, I stood in a clearing in the Cameroonian jungle, asking a hunter to hold up for my camera half the baby gorilla he had split and butterflied for smoking.

My distress — partly faked, since I was also feeling triumphant, having come this far hoping to find exactly such a scene — struck him as funny. “A gorilla is still meat,” said my guide, a former gorilla hunter himself. “It has no soul.”

So he agrees with Spain’s bishops. But it was an interesting observation for a West African to make. He looked much like the guy on the famous engraving adopted as a coat of arms by British abolitionists: a slave in shackles, kneeling to either beg or pray. Below it the motto: Am I Not a Man, and a Brother?

Whether or not Africans had souls — whether they were human in God’s eyes, capable of salvation — underlay much of the colonial debate about slavery. They were granted human rights on a sliding scale: as slaves, they were property; in the United States Constitution a slave counted as only three-fifths of a person.

As Ms. Newkirk pointed out, “All these supremacist notions take a long time to erode.”

She compared the rights of animals to those of women: it only seems like a long time, she said, since they got the vote or were admitted to medical schools. Or, she might have added, to the seminary. Though no Catholic bishop would suggest that women lack souls, it will be quite a while before a female bishop denounces Spain’s Parliament.

But we’re drifting from that most basic right — to not be killed for food.

Back to the clearing. As someone who eats foie gras and veal (made from tortured animals) and has eaten whale (in Iceland), I don’t know why I suddenly turned squeamish when offered a nibble of primate. On reflection, I probably faked that too. When I was young, my family used to drive over Donner Pass each year to go camping, and my mother would regale us with the history of the Donner Party. Even as a child, I had no doubt that, in extremis, I would have tucked in.

On our drive back to Cameroon’s coast, my guide insisted that some of the local Fang people, well known for cannibalism in the 19th century, still dug up bodies to eat. I believed him partly because in South Africa, where I then lived, murder victims were often found missing the body parts needed in traditional medicine.

Cannibalism is repugnant to the laws of all countries. But that repugnance is not written in the extra tidbits of DNA that separate us from chimps. Quite the opposite: “pot polish” on human bones found in various archaeological sites suggests that some of our ancestors exited this world as stew. That too puts us in the “community of equals” with apes; female chimpanzees are known to eat rivals’ babies.

But when human law does intervene in this primate-eat-primate world, it is also on a sliding scale. Even animal cruelty laws have a bias toward big mammals like us. For example, in a slaughterhouse, chickens are sent alive and squawking into the throat-slitting machine and the scalding bath.

But under the federal Humane Slaughter Act, a cow must be knocked senseless as painlessly as possible before the first cut can be made.

Which raises an interesting moral dilemma for the righteous Spanish Parliament: What about bullfighting?

As in all great struggles separating man from beast: a lot of it’s in the capework. Olé!

www.nytimes.com

By Jonathan Brown
Thursday, 10 July 2008

A man found guilty at the end of the longest animal rights trial in legal history has launched an appeal, claiming the judge should not have heard the case because of his interest in blood sports.

Sean Kirtley, 42, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail for his part in a prolonged campaign against Sequani Ltd by Judge Peter Ross at Coventry Crown Court earlier this year.

The case, which has been unreported until now, has become a cause célèbre among anti-vivisection campaigners after the activist became the first person to stand trial accused of conspiring to interfere with an animal research establishment under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

In addition to the custodial sentence, he received a five-year antisocial behaviour order, which will come into effect on his release. But Kirtley’s supporters claim it was impossible for him to receive a fair trial after the judge disclosed in a letter to lawyers that “one of my hobbies is game shooting”.

Inviting submissions ahead of the case, Judge Ross concluded: “I do not consider that I should disqualify myself from hearing this case and believe that I can give all parties the fair hearing that they are entitled to.” He enclosed a copy of his Who’s Who entry detailing his background interests as a keen shot, smallholder and fisherman.

Mike Schwarz, Kirtley’s solicitor, said yesterday that the judge’s hobbies would form a key plank of the appeal against the sentence and conviction. Campaigners say that the case raises serious concerns over the right to legitimate protest following the introduction of the Act in 2005.

Speaking at the conclusion in May of the 18-week trial, Detective Inspector Dave Williams of West Mercia Police described Kirtley, of Malvern, Worcestershire, as “a dedicated animal rights activist who devoted a significant part of his life to leading an organised, systematic and sustained campaign to target Sequani Ltd with the ultimate aim of closing the company down”.

But supporters say the prosecution failed to establish that Kirtley was guilty of anything more serious than running a website publicising legal protests.

The investigation, Operation Tornado, which involved 120 officers, and the subsequent trial cost more than £4.5m. Of 14 people charged in connection with the long-running protests at Sequani, in Ledbury, Worcestershire, seven stood trial. Only Kirtley and a second man, Daniel Griffiths, 39, who admitted two charges of interfering with the contractual relationships of an animal research establishment, were convicted. Griffiths received a 30-week jail term suspended for two years.

Mr Schwarz said he was deeply concerned over the implications of the case. “This is an unfair law which deviates from normal principles of criminal justice and the result is that what many people might see as conventional protesting becomes criminalised at all levels,” he said. He said that the jury was also prevented from seeing evidence of the work carried out at Sequani after it was ruled inadmissible.

The company, which assesses the safety of healthcare products and has been the target of demonstrations for nearly two decades, said it welcomed the use of the Act, which it said “sent out a clear message… to the extremists that their behaviour would not be tolerated in a democratic society”.

A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Department, which represents judges, said: “We cannot comment on matters that are the subject of appeal.”

The two men involved in the case

Sean Kirtley

Currently serving a four-and-a-half-year prison term at HMP Blakenhurst. The 42-year old from Malvern, Worcestershire is a lifelong opponent of animal testing who has also campaigned against shooting. Supporters say prosecution witnesses conceded that while Kirtley had been present at the demonstrations he had been “silent and peaceful” throughout. In the appeal submitted last month, lawyers claim Judge Ross should not have presided over the case to “prevent the appearance of bias”.

His Honour Judge Peter Ross

The 55-year-old former director of the Office for Supervision of Solicitors has been a circuit judge since 2004 and hears most of his cases at Coventry Crown Court. Judge Ross’s entry in Who’s Who details his hobbies as “shooting, smallholding, gardening and fishing”. In a letter issued during the trial, he said he considered his interest did not disqualify him from presiding over a fair trial.

http://www.independent.co.uk

by Rick Bogle

http://primateresearch.blogspot.com/2008/06/pressure-cooker.html

I am occasionally criticized and challenged for my lack of condemnation of the more extreme tactics used by some activists in light of my claim that I care about humans and other animals equally. Because I don’t condemn the vandalism of Edythe London’s home, I must not care about her and thus, I am a hypocrite. In other words, it is claimed that I don’t think we should harm animals, but I think harming her is ok.

But it’s not that I don’t have concern and respect for Edythe. If she came to my door begging for food, I’d feed her; if she were thirsty, I’d give her water. I would defend her in certain circumstances, even with my life. If she were living her life without intentionally hurting others, anti-cruelty activists would never have noticed her.

We have a responsibility to speak out and even intervene in situations where people are seriously harming others for personal gain, be it economic, political, or any other reason. I think we had a responsibility to intervene in Rwanda that we shirked; I don’t think it is wrong to use violence in some cases when other means have failed or even without trying other means in especially dire circumstances.

In the case of the animals, I hope we can invent new means to address the problem since everything tried to date has pretty much failed to stem the terror and carnage.

When other means have failed, and we can find no new means to try, in some cases, especially in cases where much harm is occurring even as we stand by and wonder what else we can do, violence might be the only choice. Sometimes there isn’t a choice.

Choiceless choices

Animal rights activists, not surprisingly, are frequently big fans of ahimsa. As a group, they are quick to condemn occasional property-damaging direct action such as the flooding and subsequent fire at the home of Edythe London. Such action evokes criticism and condemnation. This is understandable and would be a laudable normal response in a sane world.

But this isn’t a sane world.

If you can, put yourself in the place of a Jewish woman in 1942 with her child and ten or so other people hiding in a boat’s false bulkhead and trying to make it to safety. A Nazi cruiser comes alongside and soldiers board the boat looking for stowaways. Your baby starts to whimper. If they hear her everyone will be discovered.

The horrific fact is that during the course of the Holocaust similar scenarios forced people to do things that under any normal situation would be completely unimaginable. Parents suffocated their children to keep them silent.

Lawrence L. Langer coined the term “choiceless choices” as a name for the impossible decisions made by Jews and others in Nazi Germany that under normal circumstances would have been absolutely unthinkable. Choiceless choices are options between one form of abnormal response and another, both imposed by a situation that is not in one’s control or of one’s making.

There are circumstances when violence might be the most reasonable abnormal response available.

Right now, millions of animals are suffering and being killed because we like the way they taste, like their skin, fur, or enjoy seeing them killed, or believe that hurting and killing them will help us somehow. Millions. Right now.

This isn’t rhetoric. According to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, in 2007 there were 9,031,035,000 chickens slaughtered in the U.S. That’s almost twenty-five million a day, a million an hour. And that’s just the chickens.

Commercial cattle slaughter during 2007 totaled 34.3 million head, up 2 percent from 2006.

Commercial calf slaughter totaled 758,100 head, 7 percent higher than a year ago.

Commercial hog slaughter totaled 109.2 million head, 4 percent higher than 2006.

Commercial sheep and lamb slaughter, at 2.69 million head, was down slightly from the previous year.

262,791,000 turkeys were slaughtered in 2007.

It is estimated that 30 million animals are killed in research labs every year and that fails to account for the large number of mice produced during the production of exotic mutants.

In 2007, there were 8 billion pounds of fish landed by the US commercial fish industry and 667,443,000 pounds of crustaceans. No one takes the time to count the individual animals.

And then there is recreational hunting and fishing, the zoos, the puppy mills, the circuses, the rodeos, the cock fights…

To those who believe that animals’ lives and experiences matter to them and should matter to us, these numbers mean something much different than they might to an agricultural economist. When you consider what these incomprehensibly large raw numbers represent, when you consider the cows too sick to stand who are drug to slaughter behind a tractor, and the monkeys strapped into chairs while chemicals are pumped into and sucked out of their brains, the situation is accurately understood to be bleak and overwhelming. When you listen to the industry’s excuses and propaganda, see the public sleepwalking through life, oblivious to the cries and moans, you could come to believe that the human species is insane.

What choices should a sane caring person make in such an impossible situation?

If one believes that at least some of the billions of animals we frighten, hurt, and kill every year might be suffering in ways not unlike the ways we might suffer in similar circumstances, what we might call an abnormal response begins to look reasonable and understandable.

Silence seems abnormal. Repeating the same behavior over and over again does too, and it can be a symptom of an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Mental illness seems a not altogether unlikely response to an understanding of the widespread evil. Letters, lobbying, petitions, protests, bumper stickers, donations, tabling, and all the other non-violent means are understandable reactions to the reality of our role in the animals’ suffering, but the problem remains unsolved. Yet another letter must seem futile or unreasonable to a growing number of people. Some of them must be questioning whether peaceful means will ever slow the growth of this massive global horror.

What should a sane and reasonable person do? In the face of suffering on such an incomprehensible scale, it doesn’t seem abnormal or wrong to me to decide to stick a hose in someone’s window. I understand why some people might feel like they don’t have a choice. People who publicly criticize this sort of behavior should suggest a rational alternative.

The current situation, growing worse by the day, is a sort of pressure cooker. Society must find a way to relieve the pressure. In the past, some pressure has been vented through regulatory means. Bans on animal fighting, laws governing animal slaughter, experimentation, hunting regulations, etc., have been occasional pressure-relieving events. But the fire under the pot has never been turned down, and once the effect of regulation was widely understood to have led to no fundamental change in our grotesque relationship with other animals, the pressure began increasing once again.

The response from those who control the flame has been to reinforce the pot. They have done this by passing laws that make public protest more difficult. They have established new penalties for formally legal forms of protest. They have made secrecy easier for labs and other animal enterprises to maintain and defend. And all the while, the heat is increasing.

Reducing the pressure is a responsibility we all share.