Don't shoot us.

Don't eat me.

To demonstrate what a vegetarian really is, let's begin with a simple thought experiment. Imagine a completely normal person with completely normal food cravings, someone who has a broad range of friends, enjoys a good time, is carbon-based, and so on. Now remove from this person's diet anything that once had eyes, and, wham!, you have yourself a vegetarian. Normal person, no previously ocular food, end of story. Some people call themselves vegetarians and still eat chicken or fish, but unless we're talking about the kind of salmon that comes freshly plucked from the vine, this makes you an omnivore. A select few herbivores go one step further and avoid all animal products—milk, eggs, honey, leather—and they call themselves vegan, which rhymes with "tree men." These people are intense.

Meatless Like Me: I may be a vegetarian, but I still love the smell of bacon by Taylor Clark. An example of what the Grumpy Vegan would describe as a smart-arse attempt at writing about being a funny vegetarian in a not-so-funny world. Every now and then it amuses but generally it hot-hums.

Toward the end of last week I noted with great sadness the passing of Wanda Nash, here's a link to her obituary in the Battle Creek Enquirer. She was even more a remarkable woman than I realized.

Taiwan, for religious and health reasons, plans to require food manufacturers to provide detailed identification of vegetarian food, the Department of Health said on Thursday. Under the new rule, food manufacturers must identify the content of the veggie food according to five categories on the outside of the food package. The five categories are pure veggie, milk veggie, egg veggie, egg/milk veggie and plant veggie.

Taiwan to require detailed labeling of veggie food.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is offering a million-dollar prize for the “first person to come up with a method to produce commercially viable quantities of in vitro meat at competitive prices by 2012.” “In vitro” and “test-tube grown” are not ideas one usually associates with meat. The meat-substitute niche is currently occupied largely by soy in all its miraculous if slightly disappointing forms.

The announcement has apparently caused strife in PETA’s offices, where workers are debating whether they might ever eat animal tissue that has never been part of an autonomous animal. They’ll have some time to decide. So far, only a small amount of meat tissue has been grown in petri dishes — and it remains to be seen whether consumers will ever like the idea.

We are disgusted by the conventional meat industry in this country, which raises animals — especially chicken and pigs — in inhumane confinement systems that cause significant environmental damage. There is every reason to change the way meat is produced, to make it more ethical, more humane. But the result of the technology that PETA hopes to reward could be the end of domesticated farm animals. This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer.

We prefer a more measured approach. Ensure the least possible cruelty to animals, by all means, and raise them in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound. But also treasure the cultural and historical bond between humans and domesticated animals. Historically speaking, they exist only because of the uses we have found for them, and preserving their existence means, in most cases, preserving the uses we have made for them. It will be a barren world if the herds and flocks disappear in favor of meat grown in a laboratory tank.

"Million-Dollar Meat" New York Times editorial. See also Grumpy Vegan passim.

Please read my comment about two essential anthologies on animal ethics and human-animal studies at the ASI Diary.

The European Union is preparing plans to allow pig remains to be used to feed poultry. The practice - banned in Europe after the BSE crisis 10 years ago - would save farmers millions of pounds as prices of cereal feed for chickens soar, say officials in Brussels.

Outrage at European moves to feed animal remains to chickens. Anyone knows how to spell BSE? Of course, what it all boils down is cost. This proposal wouldn't be even considered if it were not cost effective. The irony, of course, is that meat isn't cost effective. That's why this crazy ideas surface. It's a plaster over a wound that won't stop bleeding.

The National Trust welcomes the EFRA Select Committee’s conclusions that a multi-faceted approach should be adopted to tackle cattle TB. We support the strategic approach proposed to include:

• more frequent cattle testing, with more frequent and targeted combined use of the tuberculin skin test and the gamma interferon test;
• the evaluation of post movement cattle testing;
• greater communication with farmers on the benefits of biosecurity measures;
• the deployment of badger and cattle vaccines when they become available in the future; and
• continued work on the epidemiology of the disease.
• With regard to any proposal to cull badgers as a means of controlling cattle TB, we are not against the culling of badgers per se, but based on the scientific evidence available from the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) we do not believe it is likely to be effective.

From the ISG’s conclusions we are concerned that any significant decline in cattle TB could only be achieved through such large scale and draconian measures to reduce badger numbers as to make the option impractical, unaffordable and publicly unacceptable. Any cull which is less comprehensive than necessary carries a risk of increasing the disease problem.

National Trust Statement on badgers and culling. See also earlier Grumpy Vegan.

They have dodged bullets and bombs and the other associated dangers of a life lived in Baghdad. One was smuggled over the border from Iraq to Kuwait - the taxi narrowly avoiding being taken out by an improvised explosive device - and the others were flown straight out of Baghdad airport.

But they are not refugees fleeing a warzone. They are stray cats who have been relocated from Baghdad to a semi-detached house in a small town just north of Birmingham.

Their rescuer Louise - she does not want to give her surname or the name of her town for security reasons - has been nicknamed the Cat Lady of Baghdad because of her penchant for picking up the feral strays, domesticating them, then flying them off to what she believes is a better life.

Operation Pet Rescue by warzone Cat Woman in The Guardian, yes, The Graun on May 3, 2008. Please visit Baghdad Cat Rescue.

With great sadness I learn that Wanda Nash died yesterday after fighting bravely -- and, typically, with great humour -- against cancer.

To say that Wanda was a truly wonderful human being is to understate significantly the impact she made on the lives of those who met and knew her as well as those who didn't but benefited from the love and compassion she emanated.

Wanda was first the Chair of the Animals and Society Institute and most recently was our Honorary Board Chair. As my ASI colleague, Bee Friedlander, says

Wanda was the natural choice to head our newly formed organization, having served on the boards of the two component organizations, the Institute for Animals and Society and the Society and Animals Forum.

ASI's Chair, John Thompson, said

When she interviewed me prior to my joining ASI I recognized her loyalty to the goal of creating a better world for all of us animals. She contributed enormously and inspired others to do likewise. I hope we can honor her spirit in our work.

There is no reason why a race of one-and-a-quarter miles should be a death sentence for a horse, as it was on Saturday for the 3-year-old filly, Eight Belles. She was euthanized after breaking both front ankles immediately after coming in second in the Kentucky Derby.

The racing industry has claimed, as it always does after such a horrifying incident, that racing young thoroughbreds isn’t all that dangerous to their well-being. But the nature of racing and breeding has changed over the years. Good horses, whose careers often begin and end before their bones are fully mature, are racing less often than they used to, which means they only need enough endurance to last a few races. That makes it all the easier to breed for the lightness of build — and the fragility — that Eight Belles showed.

There are, of course, owners and trainers who love thoroughbreds for themselves and for their ability to perform on the racetrack, which is a reasonable test of sound breeding. But the real race increasingly seems to be to capitalize on a horse’s success — to move a horse through its career as quickly as possible. The sums involved are immense, so much so that the horses seem more like financial vehicles than animals with an existence of their own. The life of the money comes to seem just as important as the life of the horse.

How beautiful a galloping thoroughbred can be — everyone who watched the Derby can attest. But we also got to witness just how narrow the margin is between beauty and tragedy. It is exactly as narrow — and only as sure — as the bones in a horse’s legs. The first rule of racing must be the welfare of these horses. Nothing else is acceptable.

The New York Times Editorial "Another Horse-Racing Horror".

The Uist Hedgehog Rescue (UHR) coalition is celebrating the relocation over one thousand hedgehogs from the Uists and their release into new territories on the mainland. The coalition has been relocating hedgehogs from the Outer Hebridean islands every year since 2003 and has already relocated over a hundred hedgehogs since they came out of hibernation this spring.

The animals are being removed from the islands as they eat the eggs of internationally important populations of ground nesting wading birds. Prior to 2007, UHR rescued hedgehogs which would otherwise have been culled. Since 2007, UHR has been working with the Uist Wader Project (UWP) 2, which is handing over all the hedgehogs it catches to be taken to Hessilhead Wildlife Rescue Trust on the mainland and then released into suitable sites in Scotland. This spring UWP is catching hedgehogs from mid-March until end-May and catching may continue in the autumn.

UHR is entirely self-funding and currently receives no financial support from the Government although it has made clear to Scottish National Heritage and the Scottish Government that it cannot continue to provide a free relocation service indefinitely.

The Uist Hedgehog Rescue announcing their landmark victory.

I had not planned to write about this. After all, can there be anything left to say? Haven’t we all become immune to this “rite of spring” that seems to many as much associated with the season as the delicate green leaves on the trees, to an event that is older than any human living on this planet?

I refer, of course, to the Kentucky Derby which started in 1875 and is now an annual spectacle held the first weekend in May. Among the horses competing at this year’s Derby was Eight Belles, the first filly to run in the Derby since 1999, and a favorite of the crowd. She finished second. Then, about a quarter mile later, she fell to the ground, both ankles broken and bones protruding through her skin. She was euthanized on the track.

So I feel compelled to mark her passing.

Two comments, each from a horse racing insider, give a concise explanation of what is wrong with the industry. “[T]he 2008 Kentucky Derby isn’t about horses. It’s about MONEY!” blares an advertisement in a glossy magazine, The Original 2008 Triple Crown Betting Guide, by “New York’s most honored selector and former top handicapper.” After the race the winning jockey remarked “… Eight Belles showed you her life for our enjoyment today.”

My ASI colleague, Bee Friedlander, writing about the tragic fatality of Eight Belles dieing in the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.

Check out Animal Aid's horse racing campaign. And the Grumpy Vegan's earlier rants about horse racing.

For the last three days the Old Town has been reverberating with jingling bells and the cracking of clashing wooden poles as Morris dancers by the bucket load celebrated Jack in the Green. This is a May Day celebration when winter is over and summer begins.

It's a striking combination of cultures: Pagan, post-punk, tourists, booze-ups, political May Days, beer festivals, fireworks, dancing, drumming bands and Morris dancers.

Later this afternoon the Grumpy Vegan walked along the seafront to see the thousands of bikers who came from across the country every year on this day. Here's a link to the useless local paper, The Obscurer, for photographs of bikers galore.

Hastings, once again, shows itself as such an unusual town with two concurrent events attracting polar opposites of attendees.

How to Avoid Premature Demise

Borrowing again from Shellenberger and Nordhaus:

If environmentalists hope to become more than a special interest we must start framing our proposals around core American values. We must start seeing our own values as central to what motivates and guides our politics.

During the past 40 years, animal advocates have mostly emphasized our reasons when trying to persuade people, governments, and corporations to eliminate (or at least mitigate) animal cruelty. Appeals to personal compassion and “doing the right thing” can certainly work for some people and institutions, but don’t think that compassion is a panacea. It is just one of the many core values held by people in the U.S., as well as other countries throughout the world. Per the quote above, animal advocates (like environmentalists) would be well-served to meet people halfway, by framing our messages and policy goals around these shared values.

For a fascinating treatise on core values in the U.S. as they relate to perceptions of ecology, see “Road Map for an Ecological Majority”, by American Environics (a company started by Shellenberger and Nordhaus). In that report, the following are identified as “core values” of the ecological base, a constituency that I believe would overlap significantly with the animal protection base.

• Ecological Concern
• Personal Control
• Civic Engagement
• Religion à la Carte
• Introspection & Empathy
• Flexible Families
• Skepticism Towards Advertising
• Culture Sampling
• Global Consciousness
• Brand Apathy
• Ethical Consumerism
• Rejection of Authority
• More Power for Media
• Importance of Spontaneity
• Personal Creativity
• Everyday Ethics
• Discriminating Consumerism
• Meaningful Moments
• Flexible Gender Identity
• Deconsumption
• Rejection of Order
• Strategic Consumption
• Racial Fusion
• Largesse Oblige
• Social Responsibility

Each of these values has a specific meaning according to the American Environics taxonomy, but one thing that is immediately evident from the list above is that modern value systems are complex. People hold very diverse worldviews and they arrive at those beliefs in various ways, which makes understanding human nature a difficult task. But understand it we must, if we intend to effect real change for non-human animals. Moreover, advocates should realize that it’s neither wise nor tenable to try to change human nature. Rather, our goal should be to create messages and policies that appeal to the values most deeply held by our target audiences.

“Target audience” is a phrase that comes up frequently in these posts. Depending on what animal issues you work on, your target audience might be very narrow, but more likely it’s fairly broad (e.g., pet owners, meat consumers, etc.). Whichever the case, advocates must work hard to understand their audience and tailor their appeals based on the audience's current values and behavior. If the audience is very large, segment it into smaller groups based on shared values, current behavior, and/or the means by which you plan to reach them. Remember: it’s not a “one size fits all” kind of world and your messages don’t have the same appeal for everyone.

One final thought: The animal advocacy community will always have its pragmatists, purists, and pundits (myself included, most likely), and in general the diversity is probably a good thing. But let’s try to limit the internal dialogue to what’s most effective and, more importantly, stay focused on our target audiences. I'm sure we can all agree that our foremost obligation is to animals, which means our energy is better spent understanding and persuading the population at large (our "target audience") rather than debating each other.

The final part in a five-part of serialization of The Death of Animal Rights published by the Humane Research Council.

Risking Obsolescence

But what is effective? There have certainly been some successful campaigns for animals over the past few decades -- how did those successes happen? Why are other approaches not getting enough traction to change hearts and minds or pass more animal-friendly policies? Unfortunately, I don’t have answers to these questions, just some personal observations based on the research that HRC has conducted. First and foremost, animal protection is just not relevant for many people, except perhaps when it comes to the care and wellbeing of their companion animals. But animal abuse is something that usually happens behind closed doors; so when people see it, they think it’s an exception.

Partly as a result of this phenomenon, some animal advocates have fallen for the belief that they just have to scream louder to be heard. They denounce animal cruelty with vehement rhetoric and graphic images plastered on billboards and then they wonder why people aren’t changing en masse in response to the truth. But sometimes the louder you are the less people hear you; it’s kind of like when people mute the TV as soon as the obnoxiously loud commercials come on. Similarly, most people tune out “angry” rhetoric and “extreme” tactics. They might provide a momentary distraction or a media spectacle, but the extra attention is quickly lost.

Contrast this with the other end of the spectrum, which might be considered the local nonprofit shelter community, which in most areas has very high favorability among the public. This is testament to the hard work of companion animal advocates, but it also reflects a polarization of public perception regarding animal people: the benevolent shelter volunteer vs. the angry vegan protester, if you will. As a result, there is a rather large void in public opinion where moderate, but resolute animal advocates could claim space and provide more access to the movement’s ideas. People really do love animals, this we know to be true, but advocates need to give these people a community and a set of ideas with which they can more easily identify.

The fourth part in a five-part of serialization of The Death of Animal Rights published by the Humane Research Council.

The Not-So-Great Divide – Reform vs. Abolition

Given the reality of their situation, animals would probably scoff at the increasingly heated debate among some advocates regarding “welfare reforms” vs. “animal liberation.” A discussion of where to focus one’s limited resources is rarely a bad idea, but to suggest that any single approach to animal advocacy is right – or that others are wrong – is just naïve. The argument is moot, not least because advocating for animals will always be a diverse effort. But making gains for animals today is perfectly valid, even if those gains are minimal. And ensuring that we stay focused on the ultimate goal of abolishing animal cruelty (at least to the extent possible) is also a valid role for some advocates to play.

However, parsing advocates into “welfarist” and “abolitionist” camps is not just divisive; it’s also a waste of everyone’s limited time and, more importantly, a disservice to animals. The only advocates who have it “wrong” are the ones who believe that their approach is the only one that’s “right.” On the other hand, those who respect the broad range of tactics that comprises the animal protection movement also recognize that small changes can lead to big long-term results. If I were to guess, I’d say that animals appreciate both the incremental changes as well as the long-term focus on liberation. So a good first step for advocates would be to end the debates and start focusing on effective advocacy.

The third part in a five-part of serialization of The Death of Animal Rights published by the Humane Research Council.

As so often happens in politics, candidates adopt contradictory policies. Here, the Grumpy Vegan reported on Obama's support for animal rights. Now, Obama is supporting the rights and traditions of sportsmen.

So, what's to be done? Animal advocates shouldn't throw up their hands in horror but roll up their sleeves (apologies for mixed metaphors) and work within the Obama campaign for his election. That's what the hunters are doing. And you should, too.

And, if you don't like Obama? Doesn't matter. Pick the candidate and the party that are closest to you and your beliefs and get stuck in.

It's often quipped that a week in politics is a lifetime, which makes Labour's rout in this Thursday's election make it seem like a draft obituary impatient to be published because the deceased won't die.

A lesson in life that the Grumpy Vegan learnt in his professional involvement with animal protection organizations is that there are times when it's important to move on to new challenges. The same is true for all those who lead political parties and governments and, indeed, animal rights groups.

The challenge that Prime Minister Gordon Brown confronts is considerable. He must reposition Labour as the most deserving party to be elected in the next general election that must be held on or before June 3, 2010. The British Labour Government led by Tony Blair was originally elected in 1997.

Mercifully for all, the Grumpy Vegan isn't Britain's Prime Minister. Nor does he want the job even if he had the opportunity. Managing my life is enough, thank you very much. But in living my life I try to adhere to my four core values: truth, nonviolence, compassion and Interbeing, the understanding that everything is interrelated. My idea of what the Labour Party should be -- not what it is -- is what I work for as a member. My contribution to the party is as a local member and in support of its outstanding track record on animal welfare. Further, my commitment is to help ensure future Labour governments pass laws and adopt regulations in the interests of animals.

The little bit of canvassing I did recently showed me that in a local election national issues often but not always trump local concerns. No one raised an animal issue on the doorstep. But animal protection is an issue that many people care about. It's alarming that one pledge Conservative Party David Cameron has made is that if they are elected to be the next government there will be a free vote in Parliament on the Hunting Act abolishing bloodsports. If that doesn't mean that Labour must be re-elected, well, I don't know what does.