By HELENA BOTTEMILLER EVICH and ANDREW RESTUCCIA 09/19/16
An oil industry executive who has spoken out against animal rights is a leading contender for Interior secretary should Donald Trump win the White House, two sources familiar with the campaign’s deliberations told POLITICO on Monday — a prospect that drew immediate condemnation from environmental activists.
Forrest Lucas, the 74-year-old co-founder of oil products company Lucas Oil, is well-known in his native Indiana, where in 2006 he won the naming rights to Lucas Oil Stadium, the home of the Indianapolis Colts football team, for a reported $121.5 million over 20 years. He and his wife have given a combined $50,000 to the gubernatorial campaigns of Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, according to Indiana state records.
Story Continued Below
Lucas’ company, California-based Lucas Oil, is a fast-growing manufacturer of automotive oils, lubricants and other additives used in everything from cars to heavy-duty trucks.
One person briefed by the Trump campaign said Lucas is a “front-runner” for the Interior secretary job. The person, who was granted anonymity to talk about private discussions, added that Trump wants a “more business-friendly and business experience-heavy cabinet.”
But environmentalists quickly excoriated the idea of an oil industry executive leading the department that oversees national parks and wildlife refuges, along with decisions about offshore drilling, fracking regulations and protections for endangered species.
“Putting an oil executive in charge of our public lands and precious coasts in places like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida is a virtual guarantee that Trump’s promise to throw open season on drilling in our special places will come true if he’s elected,” said Khalid Pitts, the Sierra Club’s national political director.
David Turnbull, the campaigns director at anti-fossil-fuels group Oil Change USA, worried that Trump’s Cabinet could be full of people with ties to the oil industry. They include Harold Hamm, the CEO of Oklahoma oil company Continental Resources, who has emerged as a possible pick for Trump’s energy secretary.
“Catering to an industry dead-set on continued expansion of oil and gas drilling is not only totally out of step with climate science, but it’s also out of step with the majority of Americans who are calling for a swift transition to clean energy and robust action on climate change,” Turnbull said in an email.
It would be nearly unprecedented for major oil executive to get the top job in the Interior Department. Current Secretary Sally Jewell was an engineer for Mobil Oil early in her career and often touts her experience fracking wells, although she is best known as a conservationist and former outdoor retail executive.
Lucas’ nomination would be a coup for the oil and gas industry, which has battled President Barack Obama’s Interior Department for years over everything from Endangered Species Act listings to access to federal lands for drilling. Trump has cultivated close ties to the oil industry, which was once skeptical of his campaign for president.
“In a lot of ways, having an oil and gas friendly person in the Interior Department is more important to the oil and gas industry than having someone friendly at the Energy Department,” one industry official said.
Nominating Lucas would also break with the long-standing tradition of Interior secretaries coming from Western states.
It would also likely draw rebukes from animal rights groups. Lucas, who owns a ranch and serves on Trump’s agriculture advisory committee, is one of the biggest donors to groups that attack the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and defend animal agriculture, hunting, meat consumption, rodeos and circuses.
Another source with knowledge of the transition operation said Lucas was on a short list of about five names that are under consideration for the post, which has started to attract considerable interest from prominent “anti-conservation zealots.” Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter, has also publicly expressed interest in the job.
Earlier this year, Lucas financed and produced a feature film called “The Dog Lover,” which portrays dog breeders and puppy mills as being unfairly targeted by animal rights groups. The movie was backed by Protect the Harvest, a nonprofit founded and chaired by Lucas, that says it’s “Keeping America Free, Fed & Fun!” In 2014, Lucas gave $250,000 to the Protect the Harvest PAC, records show.
Roger Ebert’s website called the movie “shamelessly manipulative” and “a pretty bald piece of anti-[Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] and/or PETA propaganda,” noting that the movie ends with a call to moviegoers to look into animal welfare groups before donating to them.
Animal rights supporters were quick to point out Monday that Lucas had put up hundreds of thousands of dollars into fighting an “anti-puppy mill” ballot measure in Missouri that was approved by voters in 2010.
“Forrest Lucas is a peevish advocate of trophy hunting, puppy mills and big agribusiness, and has never met a case of animal exploitation he wouldn’t defend,” said Michael Markarian, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, which backed the measure in Missouri.
Lucas’ wife, Charlotte, who co-founded Lucas Oil, came under fire in 2014 for a Facebook post that criticized Muslims and atheists. “I’m sick and tired of minorities running our country!” she wrote, according to news reports at the time.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/forrest-lucas-trump-interior-secretary-228364#ixzz4L6NViTXm
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Eric Trump, center, speaks during a campaign rally for his father and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, with his brother, Donald Trump Jr. (Isaac Brekken/AP)
The animal kingdom will have lost one of its staunchest defenders when the Oval Office is abandoned by Barack Obama, who through a series of critical, administrative rule-makings has done more to protect animals than any other president in recent memory.
This will be especially devastating if Donald Trump replaces him — not only because of his sons’ lust for hunting exotic game but also because his recently announced agriculture advisory committee includes several active opponents of animal protection policies.
By now, many will have seen the photographs circulating on social media of Eric Trump and Donald Jr. displaying their trophy kills. One shows the two young men posed with a leopard they killed in Africa. Another shows Junior holding the tail of an elephant, which he appears to have just sliced off with the knife in his other hand, and another of him lounging against the lifeless hulk of a Cape buffalo bull.
A fourth photo shows the brothers’ smiling faces framed between the horns of a magnificent waterbuck.
If these snapshots were intended to capture the rapture of proud manhood, they missed their mark. Trump’s spawn aren’t Maasai warriors, suffice it to say. But even the Maasai have stopped killing lions to prove themselves, thanks to conservationists, and now determine leadership according to who jumps highest — evidence that one can easily jump a rival’s fence when raiding cows.
When asked about his sons’ bloody hobby, Trump demurred except to say that his sons are excellent marksmen. Trump prefers golf, he said, and he obviously limits trophy collecting to women.
Junior, meanwhile, says he’d like to head the Department of the Interior, which, among other things, oversees trophy hunting imports. Under Obama, elephant trophies from Tanzania and Zimbabwe were halted and African lions were listed as threatened. What would a trophy-hunting Trump do with such protections?
Meanwhile, the Republican nominee’s anti-animal animus may be gleaned from his choice of agriculture advisers, which the Humane Society Legislative Fund has called a “rogues gallery” of anti-animal welfare activists. (Disclaimer: My son works for the Humane Society.)
Foremost is Forrest Lucas, billionaire founder of Protect the Harvest, an organization focused on fighting the Humane Society and opposing any legislation aimed at restricting cruel animal practices in the production of meat, dairy, and eggs.
But such humane propositions are viewed by Lucas’ group as unnecessarily restrictive to business, limiting our freedoms and attacking our all-too-American culture. Among the “traditions” the harvest group has sought to protect are circuses, illustrated on the organization’s website with a photo of elephants absurdly parading in a conga line on their hind legs. Thanks to animal activists and enlightened spectators, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey recently retired its elephants from the ring to the lasting deprivation of no one.
Lucas and Co. have also opposed efforts to establish felony-level penalties for malicious cruelty against dogs, cats and horses, even fighting standards for dogs in commercial puppy mills.
Also on the committee is Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, who has the distinction of being the first governor to sign into law an “ag-gag” measure that punishes whistleblowers, giving factory farmers free rein over animal welfare and worker safety. The bill’s sponsor, former Iowa state Rep. Annette Sweeney, is also a Trump adviser.
Another adviser, former Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, vetoed a bill to end the sport hunting of mountain lions and has defended factory farming practices that many happy omnivores find reprehensible, including the use of battery cages and gestation crates.
Adviser and Iowa factory farmer Bruce Rastetter is reported to be a leading candidate to become Trump’s agriculture secretary. His brother is CEO of a company that builds large-scale hog facilities as well as gestation crates for breeding sows. Which way Trump leans — animal welfare or business profits — doesn’t seem to be in question.
Let’s just say that his selection of advisers, coupled with a cavalier attitude toward his sons’ big-game hunting, bodes ill for animals and the protections so many Americans find both reasonable and desirable.
I guess it’s all in how you define freedom. Personally, I’d like to see how high these merciless profit-warriors and trophy hunters can jump — not as a prelude to leadership but rather to the ever-popular flying leap.
Veganism is all about reducing the harm we cause to sentient beings to the best of our ability. This is why we don’t eat animal products. It’s impossible to take the body part or secretion of a living being without exploitation and pain.
Or is it? If meat and other animal products could be made without harming animals, would there finally be such a thing as vegan meat? [tweet this] When it comes to lab grown meat, there are vegans on both sides of the debate. With the potential for massive reductions in the environmental impact of animal agriculture and an end to the suffering and death of trillions of animals every year, why wouldn’t every vegan be championing the cause for test tube meat?
Well like most topics I set out to cover, cultured meat production is far more complicated than it may first appear. We’re going to cover some of the pros and cons of cellular agriculture and why it’s a hot button within the vegan community.
As always, I’ll be barely scratching the surface, so you can dig into the citations and resources at the base of this post for more information.
The concept of growing and maintaining muscle outside of the body is not new. Starting in 1912, biologist Alexis Carrel kept cells from an embryonic chicken heart beating in a nutrient bath in his laboratory for more than 20 years.[1] In 1931, Winston Churchill wrote in a predictive essay optimistically entitled Fifty Years Hence that, “We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.”[2]
Over the decades from NASA-backed fish fillets made of goldfish cells[3][4] to the 2013 taste test of the first lab-grown burger,[5][6] the cultured meat, well, culture, continues to grow. [See a brief but thorough timeline in the ‘In-Vitro Meat” section of this essay][7]
The advantages of this method of meat creation are obvious. Despite the efforts, hopes and dreams of vegans and activists alike, the global demand for meat is on the rise with India and China leading the charge.[8][9]
A 2011 study concluded that, “cultured meat involves approximately 7–45% lower energy use … 78–96% lower GHG emissions, 99% lower land use, and 82–96% lower water use depending on the product compared.”[30] While these numbers sound promising, the study was largely criticized for basing its numbers on a not-yet-proven method of cultured meat growth.
While still theoretical, a 2014 study accounting for other potential production methods found that energy use for cultured meat actually exceeded current levels for beef production, but had significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and land usage and was only higher than poultry in water usage.[31]
The reality is that the actual environmental impact of cultured meat remains unknown because it’s still in such an experimental phase. The ground meat grown for 2013’s seminal burger was a relatively simple creation of pure protein. It lacked any of the fat and blood that give meat its flavor or the firmness of once-active muscle tissue. In order to create meat products of more substance, the muscle, which is what meat is after all, has to be exercised and provided with artificial blood flow, oxygen, digestion and nutrition. [32][33][34][35] Some scientists speculate that this increased energy demand may negate any reduction in land usage and agricultural input. [36][37]
Basically, when it comes to the environmental benefits, it’s still too early to know.
Here is where cultured meat has the potential to shine.
Maybe. Eventually.
There are several significant hurdles to overcome before lab-grown meat can be called anything near “cruelty and animal-free.” The major issues on the ethics end are establishing self-renewing stem cells and finding plant-based materials for the growth medium and scaffolding.
To understand what that means, I’ll give a very simplified version of in-vitro meat production. Initially, cells are taken via biopsy from a living animal and deposited into a growth medium where they proliferate and grow. Eventually, in order to produce meat products with more structure than the ground patty, they will need a form of scaffolding to hold their shape.
The first ethical issues arise when considering the long-term viability of the initial harvested cells. Professor Mark Post, the man behind the famous taste-tested burger, has said that, “the most efficient way of taking the process forward would still involve slaughter,” with a “limited herd of donor animals” kept for stock.[38] Others in the movement envision the establishment of a self-renewing stem cell line, meaning only an initial biopsy would be required at which point the cell line would replicate indefinitely.[39][40][41]
Yet another concern is that, given humanity’s love of the new, different and exotic, we may start breeding specialty animals for cell harvesting, which would still require the confinement and reproductive control of sentient beings.[42]
As a side-note, Post’s famous burger was made with egg powder to enhance the taste, introducing another level of animal suffering.[43] This is by no means, however, a necessary practice.
The second major ethical issue and one that isn’t widely addressed in most of the news reports on cultured meat, is the growth medium into which the cells are deposited. At the moment, the most widely used medium is bovine fetal serum. Fetal serum from an array of animals is commonly employed in a wide range of experiments, including those for tampons, which I covered in my “Are Tampons Vegan?” video.
The harvesting of bovine fetal serum is far from transparent. One study reached out to 388 harvesting entities with only 4% responding with any kind of methodology data. Five sources explicitly declared their harvesting methods to be confidential.[44]
Of those that did respond, the typical procedure for fetal serum harvesting was “by cardiac puncture” meaning a needle directly into the beating heart of the fetal cow. They specify that, “Fetuses should be at least 3 months old; otherwise the heart is too small for puncture.” The general process is as follows:
“At the time of slaughter, the cow is found to be pregnant during evisceration (removal of the internal organs in the thorax and abdomen during processing of the slaughtered cow) … The calf is removed quickly from the uterus [and] a cardiac puncture is performed by inserting a needle between the ribs directly into the heart of the unanaesthesised fetus and blood is extracted.” This bleeding process can take up to 35 minutes to complete while the calf remains alive. Afterwards, “the fetus is processed for animal feed and extraction of specific substances like fats and proteins, among other things.”[45]
The study continued with a detailed debate as to whether the fetal cows can feel this procedure and their possible slow death from anoxia, meaning lack of oxygen, from placental separation, and estimated that between 1 and 2 million fetuses are harvested annually for serum.[46]
All in all, fetal serum from any animal is not, by any stretch of the imagination, cruelty-free. The good news is that the champions of the cultured meat movement seem to be invested in finding plant-based medium alternatives with both algae and mushrooms providing promising options.[47][48][49][50][51] Fetal serum’s drawbacks don’t stop at the ethical line. There are scientific concerns as batches vary considerably in their composition. It also poses the threat of pathogen introduction, is not environmentally friendly and is cost-prohibitive. Dr. Neil Stephens of Cardiff University states that: “Everyone in the field acknowledges this as a problem … It currently undermines a lot of the arguments that people put forward in support of in vitro meat.”[52]
This leads into two of the additional pros of cultured meat, both revolving around human health. Though I personally believe that health is the last worry when it comes to producing a possible alternative to mass animal slaughter, it’s worth noting that the composition of cultured meat can be altered to provide superior nutritional benefits. The level of fat and type of fat can be selectively controlled. The threat of food contamination and spread of pathogens would also be greatly reduced, as cultured meat would not involve all the biohazards of traditional slaughter.[53][54][55]
So if scientists are able to create a self-replicating cell line, thus eliminating the enslavement and potential slaughter of animals, and find a suitable plant-based growth-medium and scaffolding, thus eliminating the cruelty of fetal serum and other animal byproducts, what objections remain against going after this concept in full force?
Two of the largest are cost and what’s best described as “the ick factor.” Surveys involving every range of dietary practice seem to indicate that the majority of people are put off by the concept of lab-grown meat.[56][57][58][59][60] Interestingly enough, those people with the highest rates of meat consumption appear to be the most sensitive to disgust.[61]
Of course cultured meat proponents emphasize that “lab-grown” is a bit of a misnomer. While in the testing stages, the meat is grown in laboratories. However, were it to go to commercial production, it would be made in factories just like all of our packaged food items, and some could argue, would be more natural than other chemical concoctions the public readily consumes. [see[62] for an illustration of potential production methods].
Also, given what all we inject into our food animals from hormones to antibiotics, to our outright manipulation of their genes, one could ask just how natural “standard” animal products really are.
While cultured meat doesn’t require the use of GMO’s, it’s possible that genetically modifying cells may allow them to reproduce faster and thus prove more economical.[63]
Speaking of cost, Mark Post’s initial burger in 2013 cost approximately £250,000 (over $350,000) to produce.[64] However, by 2015, Post stated that the cost is now down to £8.00.[65][66]
As with any new technology, the initial cost investments will be steep, but Post and others in the movement see cultured meat eventually attaining a competitive price to traditional products, though most likely not for at least another decade.[67]
The vegan community is most dramatically torn on either side of this issue. [ See [68] for examples]Some feel that any product derived from an animal remains a form of exploitation. Others believe that with the insurmountable fight against the ongoing animal holocaust and more non-vegans being born every day, we need to search for practical and viable solutions to replace humanity’s rising demand for meat.[69] The vegans on the pro-cultured meat side I’ve come across through my research say their motivation is putting the animals’ interests above all else. They believe it’s unrealistic to expect humanity on a global scale to cease or even reduce their consumption of animals. Thus, providing an alternative that not only looks and tastes like but actually is meat could be, with the proper harvesting method and growth medium, the most immediate path to animal liberation currently available. With the concurrent rise of research into milk and egg-producing yeast and leather and other animal byproducts,[70] could it be that the laboratory and not the picket line will be the ultimate genesis of a vegan world? [tweet this]
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this hot debate in the comments below. Check out resources below for more on cultured meat and other animal-free animal products.
This video took approximately 64 hours to produce. If you’d like to help support Bite Size Vegan so I can keep putting in the long hours to bring you this educational resource, please check out the support page where you can give a one-time-donation or receive perks and rewards by joining the Nugget Army on Patreon. I’d like to give a special thanks my $50 and above patrons and my whole Patreon family for making this and all of my videos possible.
If you enjoyed this post, please give the video a thumbs up and share the post around to spark debate. You can use the share buttons at the base of this post or any of the pre-made tweetables throughout this post.
If you’re new, I’d love to have you as a subscriber. I put out fresh vegan content every Monday, Wednesday, and some Fridays.
Now go live vegan, put the animals first, and I’ll see you soon.
Animals like gorillas and chimpanzees are closely related to humans. But they have no rights. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics tells DW why great apes should be legally recognized and why animal interests matter.
Gorillas are critically endangered with fewer than 175,000 left in the wild worldwide, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The death of Bantu, the last male western lowland gorilla left in Mexico, brought the debate over animal rights back into the limelight, particularly with regard to those those who spend their lives behind bars.
DW had a chance to speak with Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
You are one of the co-founders of the so called Great Ape Project. What exactly is it all about?
It’s an effort to achieve basic rights for great apes, for chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans, in particular. We know that they are like us in many important ways: that they are complex beings with rich emotional lives, that they are capable of reflecting on their situation, of thinking, of problem solving, that they are self-aware, that they can think about the future. We argue, that in these respects they are so like humans, that we should give them some basic rights. Meaning rights to life, liberty and protection from torture. We would like to see them recognized in the law as people, therefore as beings who can bring a case in the courts. Obviously, through a guardian or advocate, as a small child would bring a case in the courts. But not simply (being seen) as items of property.
Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at the Princeton University and author of numerous books
Are terms such as “freedom” and “captivity” not merely expressions of our own creation? Isn’t there a difference between humans and animals due to our capacity to think rationally?
That is certainly true. But you can’t explain these concepts to a two year old either, nor to someone with profound intellectual disability. Nonetheless, we do not lock them up and put them on display for others to look at. We don’t perform the kind of medical experiments on them, that have been performed on great apes. Although, fortunately, now medical research on great apes in many countries has been prohibited and that is, I think, partly a result of the work of the Great Ape Project. But given that we think all human beings have some basic rights, irrespective of their capacity to reason or reflect, or think about freedom as an abstraction, then to grant that to all humans beings, but to deny it to chimpanzees and gorillas is simply saying: “Oh well, they are not members of our species, and only our species has rights.” That is simply not defensible. We think it is very similar to racist or sexist ways of limiting the rights of non-european races, or those of women, as it has happened in the past.
Bantu, 24, died of cardiorespiratory arrest while he was sedated by veterinarians and prepared to be transferred
Some argue that zoos serve an educational purpose. An irreplaceable meeting place for man and the animal, without which we would not care about them so much…
I am not aware of any evidence that looking at animals in captivity inclines us to care more about them. I suspect that one major lesson that people absorb through caged zoos is that we have the right to confine animals and use them as, basically, forms of entertainment. I think the educational lesson would be better, if they were kept in much larger enclosures where they can live a more normal life for their species. We would learn much more from that and we would also learn greater respect for them.
You are an advocate of the philosophical current called Preference Utilitarianism. What does this mean with regard to animals?
I am a utilitarian. I think that the right action is the one that has the best consequences. In terms of what those consequences are, utilitarians classically have referred to pleasure and pain. Preference utilitarians refer to the satisfaction of preferences. Whichever form of Utilitarianism we take, it’s clear that animals come in, because they do experience pain and pleasure and animals do have preferences, obviously for avoiding pain and experiencing pleasure, as well as perhaps many other preferences as well. And we are not justified in disregarding or discounting those preferences or those pains and pleasures, just because they are not members of our species. That is why from a utilitarian perspective, animals clearly do have a kind of moral status, that means that we have to consider their interests, and we should not regard those interests as less significant than ours, just because they are not members of our species.
In your book “Animal Liberation” (1975), widely considered to be a pioneer piece of work within the realm of the animal advocacy movement, you discuss the rule of man over animals. Does the apparent growth in interest around topics such as vegetarianism and the defense of animal rights reflect a shift in the greater public consciousness?
Great apes like these bonobos should be granted basic rights says Singer
Today there’s a greater interest in animal rights, and in part that certainly has something to do with a shift in our diet. Particularly away from factory farmed animal products. Also, I believe there is an increasing recognition that this is environmentally not sustainable, and that it contributes to climate change. So I think that there are a lot of factors that are leading to a significant increase in interest in vegetarian and vegan diets. And I’ve noticed through traveling in many countries that vegan options have become available. Ten years ago you would not have found them.
You have often talked about your positions on assisted dying and suicide, pleading that one should be able to decide freely when to end his or her life. How does this apply to animals?
I think there are differences between different kinds of beings in their capacities to choose their own death, and this would be true with humans as well. You have to be of a certain age, and mentally competent in order to receive physician assistance in dying, in those jurisdictions in which it is legal, for example the Netherlands or Belgium or more recently Canada, and some states of the United States. Non-human animals don’t meet those conditions, and therefore others do have to make that judgement. Sometimes, and I think anybody who has had a cat or a dog might be aware of this, animals become ill and are clearly suffering, and there is little hope of recovery. Then we have to make a decision for them, and that should happen in zoos as well.
More and more people are getting concerned about animal rights as seen at a demonstration in Berlin
You travel a lot. Which general differences in the protection and treatment of animals do you encounter?
I have seen significant improvements in Europe over the past couple of decades, particularly with regard to factory farming. Some of the worst forms of confinement have been prohibited, for example the standard battery cages for egg laying hens. Those are advances which, to the best of my knowledge, do not exist in Latin America. So in general you’d have to say that the region needs to catch up with where Europe is on that kind of progressive legislation. Also on matters like the testing of cosmetics on animals. So there are problems, and not only in Latin America, but also in Asia. Very severe problems in China in terms of animal welfare, where there is really a national animal welfare war.
Why do you think is it so difficult to get through claims for better living conditions for animals in zoos, let alone a ban on keeping apes and other animals in them?
It is always hard to produce change against established interests, and zoos have been doing what they’re doing for a long time. Especially when you have urban zoos with rather limited amounts of land, it is very hard for them to change, because they just do not have the space to provide the proper conditions for animals.
Zoos have less space in urban areas
They would have to greatly reduce the number of animals and the variety of different species that they have. For this they worry that people would not come to visit them anymore, so it is a constant struggle. I think we really need to get zoos out of these urban areas where they don’t have enough space, and move them outside cities where they can be more like a sanctuary or wildlife park, and provide dignified conditions for animals.
Interview: Nicolás Mandeau. Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at the Princeton University and author of numerous books, including most recently: “The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically”.
There is a perception in the animal rights community that fur consumption is declining when, in fact, it is on the rise.
From 1990 – 2015, fur sales in the U.S. grew by approximately 50%
From 2013 to 2014, U.S. fur sales grew by 7.3%
In 2014, fur sales in the U.K. increased by 20%
From 2011 – 2013, global fur sales jumped by more than 50% – from $16 billion to $36 billion
According to the Fur Information Council of America (FICA), the largest U.S. fur association, the number of designers who use fur has dramatically increased, climbing from 42 in 1985 to approximately 500 today. FICA also asserts that 55% of the people who buy fur today are under 44, dispelling the myth that fur is primarily consumed by older people.
A 2015 article published in the Guardian documented the rise of the fur industry.
“The fur industry’s statistics reflect what we’re seeing in the streets — that fur consumption is on the rise,” said Edita Birnkrant, Campaigns Director for Friends of Animals, an international animal advocacy group. “For the sake of the animals, we have to organize and take a more aggressive approach on their behalf.”
Friends of Animals holds in store protests and puts up anti-fur billboards.
The increase in fur sales can be attributed to many variables, including high demand from China; the use of technology to make fur suitable for warm climates; the growing use of fur trim; the increased use of fur in men’s clothing; the growing practice of dying fur; and the consumption of fur among celebrities with a large social media following. According to Mark Oaten, CEO of the International Fur Federation, “…with this increase in demand, farmers are deciding to invest more in fur farms and increase production.”
Dying fur and the growing use of fur trim have led to an increase in fur sales and, by extension, the number of fur farms.
While the animal rights community appears to be losing the war against the fur trade (despite occasional victories), some activists have responded to the increased prevalence of fur by engaging in more provocative anti-fur tactics…..
Have you ever noticed how people who love country music are more likely to be right wing? Or how climate change sceptics are more likely to be anti-abortion? Throughout society there are examples of beliefs that seem to occur together, despite having no obvious conceptual link. The reason for this is because for most of us beliefs and world view are not the result of carefully weighing up the evidence, but are actually held as a way of belonging to a subculture. Holding a belief is often like waving a flag to show which tribe you’re in.The desire to belong
The human need to belong is one of our strongest drives. We form subcultures and use elements such as music, clothes, colors and style to show which subculture we belong to.
The human need to belong is one of our strongest drives, but modern society is too big and anonymous for most people to feel they are an important part of it.So we form subcultures within our society to give ourselves a sense of belonging. We support sports teams and get into fights with fans of other teams, we choose to follow a certain genre of music and sneer at other genres, or wear preppy clothes, goth clothes, hipster clothes, anything to define ourselves as part of a tribe. And, as well as applying this desire to the clothes we wear and the music we listen to, we subconsciously apply it to our ethical and political beliefs.When you think about it, there is absolutely no conceptual link between the arguments for high or low taxes, and the arguments for or against legalising abortion. Yet in the English-speaking world there is a rough correlation between people wanting lower taxes and being anti-abortion, and vice versa. The best explanation for this is that these beliefs are identified as flags for certain subcultures that people want to belong to.This view is supported by evidence that shows people respond differently to the same argument when attributed to different sources. One study presented the argument for vaccinating children and recorded people’s responses. Right-wing individuals were significantly more likely to agree with the argument when it was attributed to a well-known right-wing figure than when it was attributed to a well-known left-wing figure. Other studies have shown similar behaviour from left-wingers etc.Studies of the effects of wearing a chastity ring show just how powerful the need to belong really is. When a student is part of the chastity ring movement in a school where everybody else wears the ring too, he or she is no more likely to abstain from sex than an average teenager. And when there is almost no one else who wears a chastity ring in the same school, there is still no effect. However, when just the right amount of other students are also part of the local chastity ring movement, wearing the ring does marginally boost commitment to abstinence. This suggests that when everyone in the whole school is wearing the rings, no one feels like they belong. Equally, when almost no one else wears the ring, there is no tribe to belong to. But when there are enough others to feel like you belong to something special, you’re motivated to make the effort to stay part of the club. Such is the power of wanting to belong, it can even override the natural human desire for sex.It’s clear from all this that the desire to belong is a pretty powerful drive, so if you want to convince a large group of people of something, you had better not be working against their natural tribal urges by appearing to be from another side.The animal rights movement should have no “side”
The animal rights movement should NOT be associated with hippies or any other subcultural sector if we are to transcend day to day disputes
I believe that one of the animal rights movement’s biggest problems is that we are associated with hippies, and that we’re seen as being on the same team as the New Age movement (whale song, homoeopathic medicine, and so on). I think this hinders us, because people who might otherwise be open to our arguments will close themselves off because they think we’re on the “other team” – a bunch of hippies who are anti-patriotic and probably anarchists too.I think the animal rights movement has to transcend subcultures and everyday political factions, because otherwise we’re only ever going to appeal to the counter-culture. But we really want to be changing the views of everyone, including mainstream culture. There are potential vegans across the political spectrum, if only we weren’t perceived as being part of the hippie counter-culture team. One of many examples is the type of conservative person who loves the countryside, hates to see it ruined by massive factory farms, doesn’t like to see traditional local species of bird disappear, and loves dogs and horses. Someone with views like that only needs to join a few dots between their beliefs to become committed to animal rights and environmentalism, but they’ll be less likely to do that if they feel they’re changing teams.
The Animal rights movement is me, you and everyone else – and should not appear as a subcultural preference. Animal rights demonstrations should be neutral enough to appeal to all. Copyright: Jose Gil/ Shutterstock
Another downside to being associated with the New Age philosophy is that this movement often conflicts with science. And unfortunately, a lot of people believe that Veganism and Vegetarianism conflict with science too. This is manifestly not the case, as there is an established scientific consensus that a well-balanced vegan diet can be very healthy, and indeed, a number of elite athletes, such as bodybuilders, Olympians and Iron Man competitors choose such a diet. Equally, vegetarians have longer life expectancies than meat eaters. Science, and the facts, are on the side of vegans and vegetarians, but we often get lumped in with wacky New Age diets.There are ways to change the perception of the animal rights movement. For God’s sake don’t play bongos at a protest! I’ve been to a few demonstrations and advocacy events, and I always make sure to dress as smart and as clean cut as possible, to try to subvert the stereotype, and to make it clear I’m not a raving hippie who can be safely ignored. I think everyone should make this effort as much as possible when advocating animal rights. And animal rights groups should try to promote spokespersons who demonstrate the ordinariness of being vegetarian or vegan. Perhaps a few less campaigns featuring skinny white bohemian artists, and a few more featuring people from other backgrounds, such as doctors, athletes and people of different races. We must also welcome people of all political persuasions – wanting low levels of immigration, for example, should be no barrier to being part of the animal rights movement.There will always be divisions in society, left-wing and right-wing, culture and counter-culture, liberal and conservative. If we want animal rights to be accepted by everyone, we have to transcend cultural tribalism.
Humane Society International has condemned the Yulin Dog Meat festival, which is set to take place in China’s southern province of Guangxi on June 21.
During the 10-day event, dogs are paraded in cages on their way to be slaughtered and then cooked for eating by festival attendees and local residents.
Protesters presented a petitionwith 11 million signatures to the representative office of Yulin city on Friday.
File image from the 2015 festival showing a butcher preparing cuts of dog meat for sale in Yulin (Getty)
This picture taken on June 17, 2015 shows a butcher preparing cuts of dog meat for sale in Yulin, in southern China’s Guangxi province. (Getty)
The petition, which was created by Humane Society International and addressed to China’s president Xi Jinping, asks for the end of the festival where animals “suffer enormously”.
“With the dog meat festival in Yulin causing such severe animal suffering, risking human health, damaging China’s global reputation, and involving widespread illegal behaviour, as well as breaching China’s own food safety laws, it is time for the Chinese Government to take firm action to end this event for good,” the petition stated.
In 2014, the Yulin government distanced itself from the festival, saying it was staged by private business people and did not have official backing.
File image of dogs in cages sold by vendors at the 2015 edition of the festival (AAP)
File image of dogs in cages sold by vendors at the 2015 edition of the festival (AAP)
Humane Society International’s China policy specialist Peter J. Li told SBS the festival was a liability for the Asian country.
“Modern governments are fully aware that they cannot endorse social and morally questionable acts,” he said.
“Instead, the Yulin government has the responsibility to foster new culture and to build the city into a truly modern society.
“Endorsing mass dog slaughter and dog eating as a festival shows that the local officials are out of touch with the changes in China.”
Launched in 2009 to celebrate the summer solstice, the festival celebrates the consumption of dog meat, which reached its height in China during the Han Dynasty (202 – 220 AD).
Mr Li said dog eating had been rejected as an indecent habit during the Sui-Tang dynasties (581 -907 AD) and that subsequent dynasties valued canines as hunting buddies.
File image from the 2015 festival of vendors restraining a dog (AAP)
endors tie a dog in preparation to butcher it at the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, in Yulin, in southern China’s Guangxi province, 22 June 2015. (AAP)
He noted that dog eaters represented a minority of China’s 1.3 billion population and the dog meat industry constituted “an insignificant part of the Chinese economy”.
“It is an eating habit limited to older males of lower social and economic status,” he said.
“It is a dying eating habit and a distasteful business.”
The campaign against the festival has received celebrity backing from British comedian Ricky Gervais and US actor Ian Somerhalder.
The hashtag #StopYulin2016 has been popular on social media.
Claire Fryer, from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Australia (PETA), told SBS any situation where animals were slaughtered was unacceptable.
“The thought of killing, cooking, dismembering and eating dogs is enough for most of us to lose our lunch, but there’s no rational reason why that same revulsion shouldn’t exist at the thought of eating a pig,” she said.
“All animals about to be slaughtered feel terrified, and none want to die.”
Ms Fryer said Australians needed to take note of all animals that are slaughtered.
“Right here in Australia, sensitive, scared lambs, chickens, cows and pigs are killed as we willfully turn a blind eye to the fact that they are no different from the dogs we cry for,” she said.
“It’s easy to point the finger at other cultures, but let’s be honest enough and decent enough to question our own cruel habits.
Zoo visitors look at protesters and mourners from a walk bridge during a vigil for the gorilla Harambe outside the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden. John Minchillo/AP hide caption
toggle caption John Minchillo/AP
Zoo visitors look at protesters and mourners from a walk bridge during a vigil for the gorilla Harambe outside the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden.
John Minchillo/AP
The shooting death of Harambe, the 17-year-old western lowland gorilla, after a 3-year-old boy fell into his cage at the Cincinnati Zoo, is a tragedy in all ways.
Harambe delighted zoogoers, and may have meant the boy no harm.
The little boy’s parents say they are grateful their son survived and is doing well. But many people on social media platforms have attacked the mother as neglectful.
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, said on his blog that the debate over how Harambe died reminds him of old dorm room discussions where people would pose imaginary questions that weighed the life of an animal against a human being’s.
But if some of the people who snarl at the boy’s parents on social media want to do something more for animals, they may need to look no further than their own dinner.
We have heard a lot in recent years about the 8.5 billion chickens that are slaughtered for food in the United States every year. The ones that live on factory farms are kept in cages about as large as a sheet of copy paper. Their feet never touch the ground. They never see the sun or sky. They never play or mate. Their beaks are often snipped or burned off to keep them from pecking each other to death in those cramped, congested cages.
Harambe’s death might also remind us how more than 100 million pigs are raised for food in the United States. The ASPCA points out that pigs, who are known to be as intelligent as dogs, are one of the few animals Americans both keep as pets and raise for food.
Most pigs are kept in windowless sheds on factory farms, in cages so small they cannot turn around; so they will grow fat. They live in their own manure, and the air is so heavy with ammonia that many pigs develop lesions on their lungs.
Female breeding pigs are put into what are called gestation crates, where they are artificially inseminated. They give birth, then are inseminated time and time again; and when they can longer get pregnant, they’re slaughtered.
We could go on. But it is not necessary to become a vegetarian to change what we eat to consume fewer animals, which is probably healthier anyway.
What happened to Harambe was a catastrophe, but one so rare as to be almost unprecedented. The treatment of so many millions of animals raised for food can be just business as usual.
Oregon’s legislators and governor have a big decision to make regarding the future of wolves in the state. It is a litmus test on whether these leaders are honest, decent and wise and whether they serve the hopes and dreams of a clear majority of Oregonians, or other interests. Will these supposed leaders do the right thing for wolves and for a brighter future for Oregon or will they fall back on the dark side of Oregon’s history?
Honest science, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, the public trust doctrine, basic decency and respect and the clear will of the majority, all favor wolf protection. 96% of Oregonians told the state wildlife agency they favor wolf protection. Additionally, Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife website makes crystal clear that the presence of approximately one hundred wolves has resulted in a near zero effect on the state’s 1,300,000 cattle, as depredation by wolves is barely out of the single digits per year. No honest person can claim with a straight face that Oregon has anything resembling a wolf problem because it does not have such a problem.
The truth is, just as in nearby Idaho, there is a people problem, but in Oregon it comes from a relatively small number of people. Their long held prejudices and their willingness to demonize and kill vital and innocent wolves while lying about them is well known. Some have no shame in spreading utter nonsense about ‘Canadian super wolves’, snarling monster beings and the end of the world triggered by…. fairy tales.
But Oregon is supposed to be different, isn’t it? Oregon is a green and enlightened state, where honesty, decency and justice rule, right?
I had the pleasure of visiting Oregon for three weeks in June and July of 2014. I arrived in the state with a high regard for its vast natural beauty, its magnificent native wildlife, lush forests and magical coast. The forward thinking reputation of its people resonated in my mind.
After an enjoyable week with a hiking club based in Portland, I rented a car and drove to the Wallowa Valley drawn by my respect for Chief Joseph and his Nez Perce people whose sacred homeland this had been for thousands of years. I hiked into the mountains and canoed, took lots of pretty pictures of horses and deer (they are everywhere), water and forests and people and their dogs. I explored and lingered for many hours in the very field where Chief Joseph gathered with his people as they prepared to flee their homeland, their very lives hanging in the balance. My heart felt heavy and sad, as if the unbearable heart ache of 800 innocent souls still hovers over this valley and the beautiful green field guarded by trees and mountains.
The Nez Perce were the peaceful native tribe who saved the entire Lewis and Clark expedition from certain starvation and death only seventy years earlier. President Jefferson personally promised, in gratitude, that the Wallowa Valley would never be taken from the Nez Perce. Later Presidents re-affirmed that promise, even as more white settlers invaded and threatened to steal the land from its rightful owners. The settlers kept coming and kept threatening. Gold was discovered nearby and the land was taken, the promises broken.
The ancestors of these white settlers are among the 8,000 people who call the Wallowa Valley home today. Some of these people are present day Wallowa cattle ranchers who mythologize and demonize wolves, pressure the state wildlife agency to take action, persistently lobby state legislators and the governor to do something about the wolf problem, the problem that exists in their own minds.
I visited the tourist town of Joseph and its wonderful museums, including the Maxwell Plantation Museum dedicated to African Americans who worked for a time as lumbermen in the region. There I learned that the founding state constitution of 1859 forbade the presence and citizenship of African Americans anywhere in Oregon.
Just east of the Wallowas, I explored the dusty, rugged town of Pendleton. On the Pendleton Underground Tour, I learned of the hard working Chinese men who helped build the early railways of the expanding United States. When their decades long hard labor was done and the rail lines complete, they were not wanted by the white settlers who had only recently established the new town of Pendleton. These human beings, thousands of miles from their native land, excavated a village beneath the streets of early Pendleton, a cavernous and dark place. There they lived, set up small businesses and did their best to survive from day to day. Above ground, it was legal to shoot a “Chinaman” for no reason. These poor souls survived in their underground village into the early 1900’s, which is not much more than a hundred years ago.
This not so distant history is part of Oregon’s past, or is it?
On behalf of ecologically vital, remarkably intelligent and social, deeply family-connected and innocent wolves, on behalf of the hopeful and decent majority of Oregonians you are supposed to serve and who have spoken clearly on this issue, in light of the facts and honest science, with full knowledge of your obligation to at long last live up to the public trust doctrine in which wildlife belongs to everyone and is to be managed (or left alone) accordingly, I am asking Oregon state legislators, the governor and the state wildlife agency, which Oregon will you be? The enlightened Oregon of your reputation or the dishonest, cruel and corrupt Oregon of your past?
