PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – A family pet in Brookline is dead after police say someone shot it through the chest with an arrow. The Orr family is now demanding answers and asking police to investigate.
Nathan Orr said he heard his cat, Ollie, meowing very loudly and in pain on Saturday night.
“I thought my cat was fighting with another cat and I looked out of the window and saw he had an arrow through his back and out of his chest,” said Orr. “And unfortunately my kids also witnessed that.”
Orr said his two sons, ages 6 and 3, are devastated after this tragedy. The family lives on Elmbank Street, a dead-end street lined with single-family homes.
“It’s not a good first brush with a loved one passing on [for the boys],” said Orr. “It was a cat, but it was part of our family. Ollie was a part of our family.”
Orr thinks that someone targeted his cat.
“It looked deliberate,” said Orr. “Due to the fact that it was a target practice arrow leads me to believe it wasn’t a hunting accident.”
There is a wooded area behind Orr’s home, but not one that allows hunting.
Orr said he rushed Ollie to an emergency vet in Castle Shannon, but it was too late. The arrow had punctured the cat’s lungs. He said he will now focus on comforting his fiancé, two sons and wait for police to investigate.
“They took it hard, they took it very hard,” said Orr. “Especially when we told my 3-year-old that he had to say goodbye.”
Pittsburgh Police’s Humane Officer Christine Luffey said she plans to knock on every door along Elmbank Street to investigate this incident.
Orr said that Ollie was an indoor cat, but every once in a while he would make a break for the backyard. He said he always stayed in the yard near the bushes. Orr thinks that’s where he was when he was struck with the arrow.
Officer Luffey told KDKA she wants to remind all cat owners to keep their cats inside because they face too many dangers outside: including being hit by vehicles, contracting diseases, being hurt by other animals, and human cruelty.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Pittsburgh Police.
If you’d like to donate to help cover the Orr family’s veterinarian bills, click here https://www.gofundme.com/JusticeForOllie
A new film tells the story of a Derbyshire farmer who gave his cows to a sanctuary because he could no longer justify killing sentient individuals.
Short film 73 Cows features cattle former farmer – and vegan – Jay Wilde, who discussed how ‘soul destroying’ his profession was, but how difficult it was to break out of his family farming tradition.
His – and wife Katja’s – story made headlines when he initially revealed that he’d given away the animals and turned to vegetable farming, supported by The Vegan Society.
In the film, Wilde opens up about how he became friends with the animals, then felt as though he was betraying them when he took them to slaughter – what he describes as a ‘terrifying’ experience for the animals.
He also talks about the pressure he – and other farmers experience – being ‘locked into’ the farming tradition, as well as the positive reactions from veggies and vegans when he gave up cattle farming.
He also experienced negativity from locals and other farmers – who branded his facility the ‘funny farm’ (an old-fashioned derogatory reference to a mental health hospital) as a consequence of relinquishing his livestock.
The film is available to watch on Vimeo
Speaking to Plant Based News about the documentary, filmmaker Alex Lockwood said: “I first came across Jay Wilde’s story when my wife showed me an article she’d read about him in the national news.
“The story instantly struck a chord with me. I thought it was such a great subject that I assumed it probably would have already been covered by another filmmaker and so I didn’t do anything about it at first.
“After a few weeks I was still drawn to the story and so contacted Jay and Katja on the off-chance. Luckily, it turned out that they hadn’t yet been approached by any filmmakers other than press and were happy to have me document their story.”
Lockwood believes the Wildes were open with telling their story as a favor to him, rather than to bring attention to themselves. “Jay and Katja are both incredibly humble people and would never seek out the limelight,” he told PBN.
“In fact, Jay couldn’t even bring himself to watch the film until the Raindance premiere (to my relief, he enjoyed it).
“In my opinion, the more exposure Jay and Katja can get, the better, as they are in the process of transitioning to vegan farming and it’s not without its challenges. What they have done is incredibly brave, and it would be wonderful if they could get as much support as possible to start something amazing.”
Making the film had its challenges: Lockwood had no budget, and financed it himself. There were also issues with bad weather and snow preventing filming, with shoots having to be canceled.
“Also, the cattle couldn’t be released for Spring until the adverse weather conditions we were experiencing had settled and were suitable for the cows and filming, and so our final shoot at the sanctuary was delayed by a few months,” says Lockwood.
“In addition, when the day arrived to release the cows, the truck drivers refused to be filmed due to the stigma attached with taking farm animals to sanctuaries and for fear of repercussions.”
Despite all this, the filmmaker adds that seeing Wilde with the cattle, knowing they were free because of a decision he had taken, made the wait worthwhile.
Lockwood himself says he is vegan ‘for the most part’ but not yet 100 percent there. “To me, being vegan is about taking ongoing steps and continually reminding and educating yourself about the things you consume,” he said.
“Making this film and talking with Jay and Katja about the process of dairy farming has opened my eyes to the reality of how dairy products end up on our shelves.
“If people watch the film and decide that they want to make a change in how they consume animal products then that would be amazing.”
Ultimately though, the filmmaker says he was initially drawn to the film as it is a ‘great story of human conflict and compassion’.
“Jay is a wonderful subject and ultimately the film has a very uplifting and inspiring message,” he said.
“I really feel that for some people, a tone of this nature is more powerful for inspiring change and questions.”
You can follow the Wildes and their story on Facebook
Rescue workers are scrambling to find homes for more than 400 pot-bellied pigs who were rescued from a Kentucky farm in late August, plus numerous piglets born since then.
About 458 pigs were found malnourished on the farm in Falmouth, Kentucky, and potentially face euthanasia, according to the Pig Advocates League, a nonprofit dedicated to creating cruel-free lives for pigs. The animals were seized in a “hoarding” case after complaints of free-roaming pigs were reported to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife.
A woman in Falmouth began with a few pigs years ago and ended up with hundreds of pigs after out-of-control breeding, PAL said in a Facebook post on Aug. 24. Kentucky Fish and Wildlife told HuffPost in a statement that pigs can reproduce at astonishing rates and if they’re not in a controlled environment can revert to a feral state within generations.
A spokeswoman for PAL told HuffPost this is “the largest miniature pig seizure we have seen in this country.” The nonprofit is working with volunteers, animal sanctuaries and veterinarians to spay, neuter and microchip the animals, as they need a clean bill of health before they can be re-homed.
“The most [urgent] needs now are transports and donations,” the nonprofit told HuffPost in an email. “Many piglets have been born since the initial seizure and the total number of pigs is now north of 500. The cost to spay, neuter, vet, and transport to a new home will well exceed $100,000.”
Although pot-bellied pigs are often referred to as “miniature pigs,” one of the rescuers, Josh Carpenter Costner, told the Louisville Courier Journal they range from 80 to 150 pounds as adults.
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife originally gave the volunteers a Sept. 14 deadline before it would begin to euthanize the animals, PAL had originally said. But since then, it told HuffPost, the department has agreed to extend its deadline so long as volunteers show “continual progress” on moving the pigs.
“Since Monday, we have received over 1200 adoption applications,” the nonprofit said in an email. “Each application is being thoroughly screened to ensure these animals will not be going from a bad spot to worse.”
Each application to adopt the pet pigs will be vetted to ensure the animals do not get into the hands of breeders or owners who raise pigs for slaughter. One of the animal sanctuaries working to care for the pigs, the Cotton Branch Farm Animal Sanctuary, said the adoption applications were carefully crafted to ensure the animal’s safety.
A Paradise Valley company is seeking a permit to house two black bears in a roadside menagerie near Emigrant, according to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks.
The agency is seeking public comment through June 30 on an environmental assessment for the Mayfield Roadside Menagerie, north of Emigrant, owned by Jason Mayfield.
Any person wishing to keep, in captivity, one or more wild animals for the evident purpose of exhibition or attracting trade must first secure a Roadside Menagerie Permit from the state of Montana. A USDA Class C Exhibitor’s permit is a prerequisite for permitting.
The facility has been built and is ready to receive the two bears and will be operated in conjunction with Camel Discovery along Highway 89.
The facility has an interior and exterior portion. The interior is constructed of poured concrete for the floor; partitioned cages constructed of welded wire and pipe; insulated walls; and water, electrical and gas services. The interior has ample room for food preparation and veterinary care if needed.
The exterior fencing is constructed of chain link fencing with four strands of charged electrical wire along the top. A secondary fence within the primary fencing is made of four strands of charged electrical wire attached to t-posts.
The proposed menagerie is in near proximity to the owner’s residence and doors and gates are to remain locked at all times to prevent escape of the bears or entry by unauthorized individuals.
The environmental assessment is available on FWP’s website at fwp.mt.gov. Click on the News tab and choose Recent Public Notices.
Comments can be submitted online or mailed to Attn: Mayfield Roadside Menagerie; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Enforcement; P.O. Box 200701; Helena, MT 59620.
The Greater Sudbury Police Service is facing intense criticism after witnesses say two officers shot and killed an injured bear cub without properly assessing whether the animal could be saved.
Local resident Anne Chadwick wrote a post on Thursday about coming across a black bear cub on the highway that had just been hit by a vehicle and abandoned.
She said she and another passing driver helped the bear to the side of the road, where she says it appeared both disoriented and with injuries to its front legs.
They called 911 for help, but she alleges that when two police officers arrived, they didn’t fully assess the cub’s condition but instead retrieved a rifle from their cruiser.
She said she was ordered to stand back while one of the officers repeatedly shot the bear. She said the cub was shot four times before it died.
Chadwick wrote that she was traumatized by watching the animal die in front of her and wondered whether the bear’s life could have been saved.
“He looked well enough that he could have been helped (obviously I’m not a vet and don’t know for certain but neither were those police officers),” she wrote. “At the very least from what I’ve read he should have been tranquilized first.”
Her post has since been shared more than 5,800 times, prompting an outpouring of anger on social media.
The Greater Sudbury Police Service issued its own Facebook post about the incident on Thursday night, saying the officers had no other choice but to euthanize the animal.
“The bear cub was suffering, unable to move and struggling to breathe,” they wrote, adding that the officers “dispatched” the cub in order to end its pain.
The police service said the two officers would not have been able to safely handle or transport the injured animal, and though the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and city animal services were contacted, they were informed that neither agency could come to the scene.
“This is not a situation that any officer wants to be in and the Police Service attempted to find an alternative before the Officers made the decision to dispatch the cub,” the police wrote in their post.
Sudbury District MNRF spokesperson Yolanta Kowalski confirmed that her office did receive a call from the Sudbury police, but said it was “to pick up a dead bear cub from the side of a road.” She said since the ministry isn’t responsible for the removal of dead wildlife, staff advised police to contact the City of Sudbury’s animal control services.
The Greater Sudbury Police Service’s Sgt. Terry Rumford defended the officers’ decision.
“I think we have to remember that these are judgement calls that officers have to make on a moment’s notice. Further, we are not equipped as a police service to transport bears,” he told CTV Northern Ontario.
He added that the police service would be reviewing the incident.
“With these types of incidents where there is community displeasure over certain incidents, we do what is called ‘administration reviews’ and we are in the process of doing that now,” he said.
With a report from CTV Northern Ontario’s Molly Frommer
*By Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns*
I want to thank everyone very much who took the time to read my June 17
and to email me personally and post their reactions on UPC’s
Facebook page <https://www.facebook.com/UnitedPoultryConcerns>.
I’ve received an outpouring of emails from animal advocates expressing
for my post. A recurrent theme is: “Thank you for letting me know it’s not
me who finds fawning over this man and eulogizing him baffling, weird,
unfortunate, and depressing. I thought I was living in a parallel universe.”
A few complained that by criticizing Anthony Bourdain and his vegan
dishonored a “depressed” fellow human and his family. I suppose probably
everyone who systematically, consciously and deliberately inflicts pain,
suffering and death on others could be diagnosed with clinical depression or
some other mental problem. Should mass murderers and serial abusers (of
beings), instead of being “judged” (heaven forbid we be “judgmental”!), be
lavished with praise and larded with “tolerance”?
(Some vegans are judging me for being “judgmental.”)
Some Bourdain sympathizers have said such things as: since virtually
“eats meat,” they are just as guilty as, or even more guilty than, Anthony
Bourdain; he at least “looked his victims in the eye.”
I have never believed that people who “kill their own meat” are on a higher
plane of morality than those who thoughtlessly buy meat in a supermarket or
restaurant. I distinguish between people who’ve grown up on farms, where
animals up close and personal is so routine that they don’t question or
anymore, and those who, not having grown up that way, suddenly decide that,
instead of just buying meat at the store, they’re going to kill the animals
themselves. (Typically, such people, including the Anthony Bourdains, Mark
Zuckerbergs and Michael Pollens, do both, and encourage their groupies to
them, it’s so cool!)
The defense for killing your own animals is: you’re acting more “honorably”
“authentically” and “un-hypocritically” when you experience your victim’s
body, which you are personally going to destroy, than when your victim has
already been conveniently “disappeared” into a food product by others
in a “packing plant.”
One more point – which I’ve been making for decades* – is why, in the words
person who wrote to me earlier this week, do some vegans “take the
someone who vocalized complete hatred of ethical vegans?” What underlies the
self-deprecation, the judging of oneself from the point of view of The
Destroyer? Of course, animal people who share the same goals for animals
different temperaments that shape their style of advocacy. I would never
that every advocate who chooses a “softer” approach to advocacy is a
a betrayer of animals. But there’s a difference between softness as a
thought-through strategy, and softness as a cover for lack of confidence in
one’s cause and one’s skills, compounded by a penchant for passivity and a
of confrontation, however mild, with mainstream opinion.
Once in the 1990s, I was sitting around with a group of activists including
who was prominent in our movement at the time. He complained about how hard
was for him to be an animal rights activist. He did not like being or
like an “outsider.” He resented being associated with people the mainstream
considered “wacko.” He almost went so far as to resent the animals
for putting him in this predicament. He eventually left the movement. Just
well. With friends like that, animals don’t need enemies.
As for calling Anthony Bourdain a monster, I stand by my closing statement
“Honoring Anthony Bourdain”: “From the point of view of his victims – and
my point of view as an animal rights activist – he was a monster who could
If you think he was *not* a monster from the point of view of his victims,
you think he was – *from their point of view*? Which, without sounding
presumptuous, I share. By the way, Adolf Hitler committed suicide. Should
a break and even be honored because he was, as well as a mass murderer, a
pathologically “flawed” human being who needed help? Was he evolving? Could
have been saved?
* The Rhetoric of Apology in Animal Rights
United Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes
the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
Don’t just switch from beef to chicken. Go Vegan.
View this article online
Consuming between 2 and 4 pounds of steak daily, adherents of this new and extreme diet challenge everything that plant-based eaters believe in.
The word ‘carnivore,’ as we were taught in school, usually refers to a small group of animals, both present-day and prehistoric, that subsisted entirely on a diet of flesh. Think of carnivores, and animals like Tyrannosaurus rex, African lions, and sharks will come to mind; but now another animal has voluntarily added itself to the list, to the horror and doubt of many of its fellow species.
Enter the carnivorous human, a baffling phenomenon that is still small, yet gaining attention, both supportive and not. Proponents of carnivory claim that eating only meat, offal, and eggs — with absolutely no fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, or dairy — offers tremendous mental and physical benefits.
Shawn Baker, an orthopaedic surgeon from Orange County, California, only eats steak, a staggering 4 pounds of it each day. He switched from a diet that included salads, spinach, dairy and nuts to pure carnivore 18 months ago, and told the Guardian that his overall wellbeing has improved drastically.
“My joint pain and tendinitis went away, my sleep became excellent, my skin improved. I no longer had any bloating, cramping or other digestive problems, my libido went back to what it was in my 20s and my blood pressure normalised.”
Others claim the all-meat diet boosts mental focus, clarity, and productivity; that it has enabled them to achieve feats of physical prowess previously unattainable; and that it has simplified their lives. Baker doesn’t have to plan meals; he only asks himself how many steaks he wants. Michael Goldstein, a “bitcoin and meat maximalist” from Texas, says,
“Grocery shopping takes all of ten minutes, most of which is standing in the checkout line. I spend little time thinking about food. I only need to eat once or twice a day (no snacking or cravings). Basically, it’s the greatest productivity hack.”
Productivity aside, it is difficult to reconcile such a diet with its impact on the planet. The scientific evidence is mounting against industrial meat production and the numerous ways in which it degrades the planet, from destruction of natural habitats and loss of biodiversity, to requiring massive amounts of water for very low returns and widespread contamination of water sources, to dangerous methane emissions from the vast quantities of poop.
Nor do the carnivorous adherents prioritize the purchase of higher-quality meat (or at least meat from animals raised in conditions considered more natural or ethical), despite the fact that it comprises their entire diet. The Guardian article cites a software engineer from New York City who “will sometimes eat four to six quarter-pounder burger patties from McDonald’s for lunch.” Goldstein references the grocery store, where most meat sold is produced in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and says he spends $400 per month on steak. Based on my limited knowledge of grass-fed steak prices, $400 would not go far at his consumption rate of 2-2.5 pounds per day — perhaps a week at best.
Excessive red meat consumption has been linked to heart disease, inflammation in the gut, diabetes, and even cancer. But even if fears of pending illness are not sufficient to deter the new carnivores, the environmental argument should. It begs the question, what responsibility do we have to ourselves, to fellow humans, and to the planet to make dietary choices that sustain, or, better yet, regenerate our world?
Everything we do on a daily basis has an effect, and our choices add up. Animal agriculture is estimated to be on par with transportation when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions (some say it’s more), and we have a responsibility as conscientious citizens to do our best to reduce our individual footprints. Eating a carnivorous diet has no place in a world that strives to distribute food more evenly, alleviate hunger, and slow climate change.
*As an animal rights activist and a longtime scholar of sexism and gender
issues, while reading the recent spate of articles about the sexual abuse
of females by males in positions of power, I have been struck by the clear
similarities to the abuse of animals by humans.*
*Let me be clear. I am not speaking here about situations where someone
beats a dog or kills a cat, or other horrific instances of abuse and
torture of individual animals. I am talking about the systemic and
systematic abuse of animals that is practiced, institutionalized,
and normalized by all human cultures throughout time, where humans are in a
position of greater power than the animals. Just as human males in
positions of power feel free to abuse females they desire, so too do we
humans feel free to do the same to animals.*
*The common dimension is a concept of property, which explicitly or
implicitly has been used throughout history to justify the abuse of humans
females, and which similarly has normalized, driven, and justified human
treatment of animals across all centuries and societies. In both cases,
the victims, deemed property, become resources or objects to fulfill the
desires of those in power. Thankfully, legal views of women as chattel
have eroded in many places, although implicit and more subtle views of them
as property (private if not public), as “available” resources, persist
today still. But for animals there has been virtually no change at all,
legally or otherwise. Legally they remain our property, things or
objects to be used and exploited in any way we wish. Thus as we see with
human females still, concepts of property and ownership have spawned the
justification for their abuse by people in positions of greater power—males
in the case of human females, all humans in the case of animals.*
*Thus both groups are treated as “available” resources. As beings to be
“taken” and used as the perpetrators see fit. For human females, this may
include horrific sexual abuse, for animals “anything goes” and there is
virtually no limit to how we humans may use animals and what we may do to
them. We eat their flesh, we steal their eggs and the milk intended for
their own babies, we torture and kill them so we may tear away and wear
their skin and fur. We brutally separate mothers and babies, we rip
families apart. We demean and torture animals so they can perform for our
“entertainment,” we perform unspeakable “experiments” on them. *
*All of this because, like the human victims of sexual abuse, the animals
are “ours” for the taking, there to violate, to commit terrible acts upon
by those in power. And we do, ruthlessly. In the words of Nobel prize
winning author J.M. Coetzee, a dedicated animal advocate, human treatment
of animals is ”a crime of stupefying proportions.” And Nobel prize winning
writer Isaac Bashevis Singer, also a resolute animal advocate, wrote,”In
relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal
*Human treatment of animals, these normalized actions on our part, gives
the lie to the morality we profess to , and bespeaks deep pathology in the
human psyche. To abuse, exploit, torture and kill other beings, living and
sentient, because we are in a position of dominance and greater power is
something we consider wrong. To then split and compartmentalize this
ethic—culturally and individually—and apply it solely to humans but not
animals not only contradicts our professed values and morality, but in so
doing also creates psychologically dangerous and destructive conflicts
within the human psyche and soul. Like our animal victims, we too are
damaged and suffer from what we have wrought, from the atrocities we
inflict on them.*
*It is time for this to stop. Time for our norms, institutions and values
to change, time to bury the outmoded historical paradigms which have
unscientifically created hierarchy among human groups and between humans
and animals, attempting thereby to justify exploitation and abuse by those
wielding power. Time to change oppressive ideologies and institutions. Time
for humans to end our psychological denial, reintegrate our morality, and
heal our souls. To become the ethical beings we profess to be–so that just
as we so correctly condemn the sexual abuse of human females, so too will
we condemn, renounce, and end our exploitation and abuse of animals.*
*Deborah Tanzer, Ph.D, is a psychologist and psychoanalyst in New York
City.. She is writing a book about the psychological connections between
human violence, gender issues, and human treatment of animals.*
*Deborah Tanzer, Ph.D.firstname.lastname@example.org