Tonight is Christmas Eve, and tomorrow Christians everywhere will be celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, perhaps the most profound event in human history.
I think it is worth noting that we should remember all of God's creation on Christmas, and all year long. The love that Christ brought to the world should continue each and every day toward not only our fellow human beings, but to all the glorious life around us.
Mary and Joseph travelled to Bethlehem and sought shelter, and found no room at the inn. Most Christians, as well as most people of other religions are familiar with this Christmas story.
I feel that animals are included in this wonderful saga for a reason. Mary rode a donkey on the trip to Bethlehem. Since the birth of Christ was very near, this little donkey needed to be very gentle and steady in order to not injure Mary. Legend has it that because of the donkey's great service to Mary and Joseph, God marked him with a cross. If you look at a donkey today, you will see the stripe down his (or her) back and the stripe that also goes across the withers, forming a cross-like marking.
God could have had the birth of His Son occur anywhere, but instead of in a palace or other place designating great wealth, Christ was born in a manger. The Gospels tell us that there were various animals stabled there - cows, donkeys and sheep. Poor shepherds witnessed the bright star that led them to the manger, as did the three kings, who travelled a great distance by Camel to pay homage to the Christ Child and give him gifts. Therefore, people of all social classes were included in the miraculous birth.
These animals seemed to sense the enormity of the event, as they were quiet and did not disturb the sleeping baby Jesus. I feel that this demonstrates the underlying spirituality of all creatures - they have an innate knowledge of their Creator, and have a mystery about them that is hard for some human beings to understand.
I hope and pray that 2014 brings more victories for animals, from farm animals to pets, to wildlife and ocean life. Cruelty still runs rampant all over the globe, and good people must continually work together to bring about change so that all of creation can at last be free to live free from abuse and exploitation by those who do not recognize their intrinsic worth.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
DiGiorno Pizza Cheese Supplier Cow Abuse
Yesterday, I viewed an undercover video published by Mercy for Animals which showed flagrant and upsetting abuse of dairy cows at a Wisconsin dairy that supplies cheese to DeGiorno for use in their frozen pizzas.
Hopefully, DiGiorno will remove this dairy from their supply chain. Videos such as this one highlight the rampant abuse present in some dairies. These gentle, helpless creatures were kicked, stabbed, cursed, hit about the face and body and the downed animals were lifted on a "cow lift" by various parts of their bodies. One cow was pitifully "mooing" as she was being lifted.
Also, these poor Holsteins were slipping on the manure-covered surface they were non. This, of course, leads to foot and leg problems. Once a cow cannot stand and move on her own, her life is over. Cows raised in clean, humane conditions can have a life span of 25 years, but from what I have read, the average lifespan of today's dairy cow on a factory farm is four to five years before she is physically spent from producing a cow each year and producing an unnaturally large amount of milk.
Milk production per cow has dramatically increased in the last thirty years. The most recent figures I can find show many dairy cows produce an average of about 20,000 lbs. of milk per year. This is far more than would be produced naturally, e.g., if human intervention had not "tweeked" these animals to produce an unsustainable amount of milk. Cows naturally produce enough milk to feed their offspring. In commercial dairies, a cow's calf is removed from her almost immediately after birth so that her milk can be used for human consumption.
Female calves (heifers) are often retained as replacements for cows who can no longer produce, are sick or injured or die from other causes. Male calves are sold as veal or raised for beef. They are what is called a "by-product" of the dairy industry. Thankfully, California has outlawed the use of veal crates a few years ago. The old crates can still be seen stacked up by the roadside at dairies that are about a 20 minute drive from my home. California also outlawed tail-docking of dairy cows.
When I was growing up in a Los Angeles suburb, we still had one dairy in my community very close to my family home. I never saw a cow with a docked tail in California and that dairy didn't have a large number of cows and they were kept in good conditions. I believe with the advent of the factory farm, everything has gone downhill.
It is very important that all of us fight proposed "ag-gag" laws which would make it a criminal offense to enter a farm or dairy and film the activities. These undercover videos are sometimes the only means to document horrendous abuse.
Please contact your U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators and ask them to vote "no" on any "ag-gag" bills. My California Representative and Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are always very receptive to animal welfare issues.
Hopefully, DiGiorno will remove this dairy from their supply chain. Videos such as this one highlight the rampant abuse present in some dairies. These gentle, helpless creatures were kicked, stabbed, cursed, hit about the face and body and the downed animals were lifted on a "cow lift" by various parts of their bodies. One cow was pitifully "mooing" as she was being lifted.
Also, these poor Holsteins were slipping on the manure-covered surface they were non. This, of course, leads to foot and leg problems. Once a cow cannot stand and move on her own, her life is over. Cows raised in clean, humane conditions can have a life span of 25 years, but from what I have read, the average lifespan of today's dairy cow on a factory farm is four to five years before she is physically spent from producing a cow each year and producing an unnaturally large amount of milk.
Milk production per cow has dramatically increased in the last thirty years. The most recent figures I can find show many dairy cows produce an average of about 20,000 lbs. of milk per year. This is far more than would be produced naturally, e.g., if human intervention had not "tweeked" these animals to produce an unsustainable amount of milk. Cows naturally produce enough milk to feed their offspring. In commercial dairies, a cow's calf is removed from her almost immediately after birth so that her milk can be used for human consumption.
Female calves (heifers) are often retained as replacements for cows who can no longer produce, are sick or injured or die from other causes. Male calves are sold as veal or raised for beef. They are what is called a "by-product" of the dairy industry. Thankfully, California has outlawed the use of veal crates a few years ago. The old crates can still be seen stacked up by the roadside at dairies that are about a 20 minute drive from my home. California also outlawed tail-docking of dairy cows.
When I was growing up in a Los Angeles suburb, we still had one dairy in my community very close to my family home. I never saw a cow with a docked tail in California and that dairy didn't have a large number of cows and they were kept in good conditions. I believe with the advent of the factory farm, everything has gone downhill.
It is very important that all of us fight proposed "ag-gag" laws which would make it a criminal offense to enter a farm or dairy and film the activities. These undercover videos are sometimes the only means to document horrendous abuse.
Please contact your U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators and ask them to vote "no" on any "ag-gag" bills. My California Representative and Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are always very receptive to animal welfare issues.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Defeat the Farm Bill Containing the King Amendment
I would like to urge everyone to contact their representative in the House and their State Senators and ask them to vote "no" on the Farm Bill containing the King Amendment.
This amendment would strip states ability to enact their own animal welfare laws and to pass legislation outlawing "ag-gag" laws, which would hamstring the ability of undercover investigators to "blow the whistle" on factory farming and other operations who treat animals inhumanely.
This amendment is sponsored by Iowa Republican Steve King, and would, among other unsavory things, pave the way for horse slaughter to resume in the U.S. The last horse slaughter plant was closed in 2007, much to the relief of those of us who love these magnificent animals.
Please don't confuse Steve King with Representative Peter King of New York, who is also a Republican.
I just read the latest news on the Farm Bill/King Amendment and there is "hope" that it come together, after some tweaking, at the end of this month (October).
My congressional representative, Raul Ruiz, M.D. has already once voted against the Farm Bill. I had Emailed his office through the Humane Society of the United States and I received a reply from Congressman Ruiz, saying that the bill had passed. Of course, it has the support of many in the farming regions of the country, which include large numbers of factory farming operations.
We, as compassionate individuals, need to contact everyone in government that we can and ask that any Farm Bill that includes the King Amendment be defeated. Rep. Steve King has consistently been a foe to animals and their welfare. All animals, everywhere, have the right to humane treatment.
It is very easy to find and contact your House representative by using a search engine (if you don't know who represents your district). Please also contact your U.S. Senators urging a "no" vote if this bill makes it to the Senate floor.
I am fortunate to be a California native whose U.S. Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are very environmentally and animal-welfare friendly.
This amendment would strip states ability to enact their own animal welfare laws and to pass legislation outlawing "ag-gag" laws, which would hamstring the ability of undercover investigators to "blow the whistle" on factory farming and other operations who treat animals inhumanely.
This amendment is sponsored by Iowa Republican Steve King, and would, among other unsavory things, pave the way for horse slaughter to resume in the U.S. The last horse slaughter plant was closed in 2007, much to the relief of those of us who love these magnificent animals.
Please don't confuse Steve King with Representative Peter King of New York, who is also a Republican.
I just read the latest news on the Farm Bill/King Amendment and there is "hope" that it come together, after some tweaking, at the end of this month (October).
My congressional representative, Raul Ruiz, M.D. has already once voted against the Farm Bill. I had Emailed his office through the Humane Society of the United States and I received a reply from Congressman Ruiz, saying that the bill had passed. Of course, it has the support of many in the farming regions of the country, which include large numbers of factory farming operations.
We, as compassionate individuals, need to contact everyone in government that we can and ask that any Farm Bill that includes the King Amendment be defeated. Rep. Steve King has consistently been a foe to animals and their welfare. All animals, everywhere, have the right to humane treatment.
It is very easy to find and contact your House representative by using a search engine (if you don't know who represents your district). Please also contact your U.S. Senators urging a "no" vote if this bill makes it to the Senate floor.
I am fortunate to be a California native whose U.S. Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are very environmentally and animal-welfare friendly.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Current Issues/Running With the Bulls
There are so many things going on that affect animals, both domestic and wild, that I can hardly keep up. I check websites such as www.hsus.org and others regularly, and it seems there is an unending stream of upsetting events that have a detrimental effect on the animal world.
I recently spoke of a proposal in Lake Elsinore, California to have a "running of the bulls" similar to that in Spain. Well, I have seen several news pieces on T.V. addressing this "event" which evidently has been occurring in different parts of the country. One story showed photos (I don't remember what state it was in, though) of mostly young men running like crazy along side some bulls, who were just trotting along as if they didn't know what all the shouting was about.
A news piece I read said that prior to the "running" there was much eating and drinking, etc. Well, I don't know what breed the bulls were, but they were horned and seemed very calm. A man on horseback was kind of riding along behind, keeping the cattle moving. These bulls acted more like steers. Oh, on the news they stated that these human runners paid $75.00 and had to pay for an insurance waiver (which I think was another $30.00, not sure) to participate. These animals seemed very used to human contact, so hopefully injuries to both humans and animals will be avoided.
In my opinion, this whole thing is a travesty and should not be allowed. This is the U.S.A., not Spain, and people should have better things to do. Eventually, despite any precautions taken, someone will get hurt. The bulls were not moving very fast (not like they do in Spain), so that fact hopefully will avoid having one or more of them slip and fall.
I would really like to see these "brave" guys run with a couple of Jersey or Guernsey dairy bulls! Despite their cute faces, these bulls are known for being among the most aggressive of all bulls. About ten or twelve years ago, a dairy worker here in SoCal was killed by a bull. Some cows were being moved from one area to another and the bull somehow got loose (I can't remember the whole story) and charged the worker and, sadly, killed him. Bulls can be dangerous, bottom line.
Unfortunately, the news story said that these events are being scheduled in more cities, among them San Diego, and I think San Francisco(?). Can't imagine the folks in San Francisco allowing this circus to come to their city.
I recently spoke of a proposal in Lake Elsinore, California to have a "running of the bulls" similar to that in Spain. Well, I have seen several news pieces on T.V. addressing this "event" which evidently has been occurring in different parts of the country. One story showed photos (I don't remember what state it was in, though) of mostly young men running like crazy along side some bulls, who were just trotting along as if they didn't know what all the shouting was about.
A news piece I read said that prior to the "running" there was much eating and drinking, etc. Well, I don't know what breed the bulls were, but they were horned and seemed very calm. A man on horseback was kind of riding along behind, keeping the cattle moving. These bulls acted more like steers. Oh, on the news they stated that these human runners paid $75.00 and had to pay for an insurance waiver (which I think was another $30.00, not sure) to participate. These animals seemed very used to human contact, so hopefully injuries to both humans and animals will be avoided.
In my opinion, this whole thing is a travesty and should not be allowed. This is the U.S.A., not Spain, and people should have better things to do. Eventually, despite any precautions taken, someone will get hurt. The bulls were not moving very fast (not like they do in Spain), so that fact hopefully will avoid having one or more of them slip and fall.
I would really like to see these "brave" guys run with a couple of Jersey or Guernsey dairy bulls! Despite their cute faces, these bulls are known for being among the most aggressive of all bulls. About ten or twelve years ago, a dairy worker here in SoCal was killed by a bull. Some cows were being moved from one area to another and the bull somehow got loose (I can't remember the whole story) and charged the worker and, sadly, killed him. Bulls can be dangerous, bottom line.
Unfortunately, the news story said that these events are being scheduled in more cities, among them San Diego, and I think San Francisco(?). Can't imagine the folks in San Francisco allowing this circus to come to their city.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Running of the Bulls in Lake Elsinore, Ca?
Today, I received an Email from www.change.org sent by Animal Advocates of Huntington Beach, California, asking people to sign a petition to stop proposed "running of the bulls" in Lake Elsinore, California. Evidently, a Rob Dickens of The Great Bull Run, LLC, based in Boston, thinks it would be just dandy to replicate what takes place each year in Pamplona, Spain, where silly people run frantically after equally frantic bulls trying desperately to get away from them, and risk being gored or trampled. Bulls frequently fall and are injured. Of course, in Spain, the unfortunate creatures are on their way to the bull rings, and we all know what happens to them then.
I would suggest that Mr. Dickens and The Great Bull Run, LLC, stay in Boston and keep out of California's business. We don't need any cruel, ridiculous "entertainment" such as people chasing bulls around here in our State. We have enough trouble controlling the animal "entertainment" we do have and ensuring that every creature is treated humanely without the extra burden of something that nobody needs.
Cruel "sports" such as bull fighting have never been legal in the U.S., and it needs to stay that way. Even if the bulls are not intentionally hurt in this "activity", there is still a high risk to both human and animal participants and should never be allowed here, in my opinion.
Hopefully, when people realize what a travesty this is, it will never get off the ground. Oh, and when the venue applies for liability insurance, I would sure like to know what the premium would be!
I would suggest that Mr. Dickens and The Great Bull Run, LLC, stay in Boston and keep out of California's business. We don't need any cruel, ridiculous "entertainment" such as people chasing bulls around here in our State. We have enough trouble controlling the animal "entertainment" we do have and ensuring that every creature is treated humanely without the extra burden of something that nobody needs.
Cruel "sports" such as bull fighting have never been legal in the U.S., and it needs to stay that way. Even if the bulls are not intentionally hurt in this "activity", there is still a high risk to both human and animal participants and should never be allowed here, in my opinion.
Hopefully, when people realize what a travesty this is, it will never get off the ground. Oh, and when the venue applies for liability insurance, I would sure like to know what the premium would be!
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Wild Animals Owned by Private Individuals
A couple of days ago on the news I heard that someone has applied for a permit (or is going to) to keep several tigers at a training facility in Malibu, Ca. Understandably, there has been a very negative reaction among residents who fear the tigers will pose a danger to their community and especially to their children.
Perhaps the residents of Malibu remember the tragedy in Ohio when a man with a large number of exotic animals committed suicide after the released them. These beautiful lions, tigers and other animals were shot by police as they feared they would injure or kill humans in the area. This event opened up a lot of discussion about wild animals owned by individuals.
Many experts on exotics agree that the place for these beautiful creatures is in a zoo or other well-run facility staffed by experts. Top zoos have habitats to keep these animals secure and they know what they need to thrive, such as proper diet and they can provide them with the best veterinary care.
Tigers are so threatened in the wild that I feel captive breeding programs are the only way to prevent extinction, but that only experts should be caring for and housing these big cats.
When I see big cats languishing in roadside zoos, circuses, or private compounds, I feel such pity for them. The enclosures are usually much too small and they are denied everything that is natural for them. Add that to the inherent danger of keeping a wild animal(s) and it adds up to a bad situation all the way around.
The San Diego Zoo is world famous, and Los Angeles also has an excellent zoo. I'm sure there are many in other parts of the country. These facilities know how to care for these cats and other exotics.
In my area, there are a couple of large properties where the owners keep some wild animals, such as bison and zebras. This is entirely different from keeping large carnivores as these people maintain nice big pastures for grazing and the animals are well-kept and content. Bison and zebras are not dangerous, and they graze among horses and cattle.
Some states have laws against individuals keeping inherently dangerous animals, and in my opinion, every state should enact such a law.
Legally, in California at least, I can't speak for any other state, the owner of any exotic animal, or any animal considered "wild" is strictly liable for any injury caused by that animal. What that means is that a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit (or wrongful death suit if someone was killed) need not prove the defendant was negligent. It is enough that the defendant's animal(s) injured the plaintiff. All wild animals are considered inherently dangerous and thus the owner is strictly liable.
Domestic animals are not held to that standard. Dog owners are generally liable when their dog bites someone, but not strictly liable. In the case of a dog bite, there is some wiggle room, such as when a trespasser is bitten. However, there have been cases when a dog owner was held liable even when someone was trespassing on their property, or even if they were burglarizing the defendant's home!
Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. This blog is for entertainment purposes only and if any reader has a legal question, they should contact their own attorney. Also, nothing in the blog creates any attorney/client relationship.
Perhaps the residents of Malibu remember the tragedy in Ohio when a man with a large number of exotic animals committed suicide after the released them. These beautiful lions, tigers and other animals were shot by police as they feared they would injure or kill humans in the area. This event opened up a lot of discussion about wild animals owned by individuals.
Many experts on exotics agree that the place for these beautiful creatures is in a zoo or other well-run facility staffed by experts. Top zoos have habitats to keep these animals secure and they know what they need to thrive, such as proper diet and they can provide them with the best veterinary care.
Tigers are so threatened in the wild that I feel captive breeding programs are the only way to prevent extinction, but that only experts should be caring for and housing these big cats.
When I see big cats languishing in roadside zoos, circuses, or private compounds, I feel such pity for them. The enclosures are usually much too small and they are denied everything that is natural for them. Add that to the inherent danger of keeping a wild animal(s) and it adds up to a bad situation all the way around.
The San Diego Zoo is world famous, and Los Angeles also has an excellent zoo. I'm sure there are many in other parts of the country. These facilities know how to care for these cats and other exotics.
In my area, there are a couple of large properties where the owners keep some wild animals, such as bison and zebras. This is entirely different from keeping large carnivores as these people maintain nice big pastures for grazing and the animals are well-kept and content. Bison and zebras are not dangerous, and they graze among horses and cattle.
Some states have laws against individuals keeping inherently dangerous animals, and in my opinion, every state should enact such a law.
Legally, in California at least, I can't speak for any other state, the owner of any exotic animal, or any animal considered "wild" is strictly liable for any injury caused by that animal. What that means is that a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit (or wrongful death suit if someone was killed) need not prove the defendant was negligent. It is enough that the defendant's animal(s) injured the plaintiff. All wild animals are considered inherently dangerous and thus the owner is strictly liable.
Domestic animals are not held to that standard. Dog owners are generally liable when their dog bites someone, but not strictly liable. In the case of a dog bite, there is some wiggle room, such as when a trespasser is bitten. However, there have been cases when a dog owner was held liable even when someone was trespassing on their property, or even if they were burglarizing the defendant's home!
Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. This blog is for entertainment purposes only and if any reader has a legal question, they should contact their own attorney. Also, nothing in the blog creates any attorney/client relationship.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Purpose of My Blog
Hi - I just started this new blog to go along with my others dealing primarily with dogs. I would like to expand to include all animals and how to treat them humanely and compassionately. My information comes from news reports and other animals welfare sites, including the Humane Society of the United States, The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, In Defense of Animals, and others. This is only a partial list of resources I use to keep abreast of what's happening that benefits all our friends and what threatens them.
I'm a licensed attorney, but am primarily retired. I wish to do whatever I can do with my knowledge of law to help ensure better treatment for all animals now and in the future. Helping to educate young people on how to act in a humane and loving manner to all of God's wonderful creation is important, as they are the future.
Nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice. It is for entertainment purposes only and does not constitute any attorney/client relationship. If any reader has a legal question, they should contact their own attorney.
I'm a licensed attorney, but am primarily retired. I wish to do whatever I can do with my knowledge of law to help ensure better treatment for all animals now and in the future. Helping to educate young people on how to act in a humane and loving manner to all of God's wonderful creation is important, as they are the future.
Nothing in this blog is intended as legal advice. It is for entertainment purposes only and does not constitute any attorney/client relationship. If any reader has a legal question, they should contact their own attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)