Remember the downer cow scandal? It seemed like every major media outlet had horrific pictures of downer cows on their front pages, and the undercover video taken by the Humane Society of the United States was everywhere. A lot of people seemed to think that it would spark some major reforms in the American meat industry, including tighter agricultural inspections, and a more aggressive attitude about keeping downer cows out of the food supply.

Well, apparently not everyone got the “major reforms” memo, because the HSUS has come out with another damning investigation, complete with video, which shows that downer cows are still being abused, and they are still reaching the American food supply. If you can stomach it, watch the video which accompanies the article, because it’s pretty awful, and I think it cuts to the heart of the problem.

Why should we care about downer cows?

It might help to know what a downer cow is, if you somehow missed the media brouhaha over the issue. Downer cows, simply put, are cows which cannot get up. This can be due to injuries, disease, depression, or a host of other factors. In the United States, as in many other nations, downer cows are not supposed to enter the food supply, out of concern that they might carry diseases, especially mad cow disease. So, slaughterhouses will go to great lengths to ensure that cows “walk” to slaughter, so that their meat can be legally sold.

I would hope that the issue appeals to your basic humanity. Cows are living organisms with emotions and the capacity to feel pain. Dairy cows undergo years of abuse before finally being sold for slaughter when they can no longer produce, and the fact that they are shocked, kicked, beaten, and dragged to get them to move at livestock auctions and slaughterhouses is pretty disgusting. Happy cows, my friends, do not come from California.

It should also be ringing food safety alarms. Downer cows are kept out of the food supply for a reason; the fact that they are clearly in the food supply now should be a cause for concern. Eating meat at all is debateable for a lot of reasons; eating tainted meat is definitely not a good thing. Given the limited resources available to the USDA for testing and monitoring the food supply, you really have no idea what’s on your plate when you eat meat.

What can you do about it? Write the USDA to lobby for tougher routine inspections, and to ask for stronger laws against abuse of slaughter animals. Write your representatives in Congress and the Senate to ask them to support tighter regulations at the USDA, and make it clear that you want to see reforms in the American meat industry, and consider writing major slaughterhouses in your area to express your concerns about animal abuse and downer cows.

Talking with D the other day, she asked if I had noticed “the bunny article” in the New York Times, and it took me a minute to figure what she meant, but then I remembered. I had, in fact, seen the bunny article, or rather glanced at it but not really absorbed it, and I admitted as much.

Basically, the article is ostensibly about doing battle with garden pests, except that it focuses more specifically on the pests of the upper classes, New Yorkers with second homes and so forth, rather than the garden pests of people who, you know, actually garden for food. To eat. Now, we all know that I’m a class snob, so I have a rough time mustering up that much pity for poor little rich people, but class issues aside, when I started delving more deeply into the article, I found myself pretty disgusted.

Garden pests happen, and it is really annoying. My father is constantly doing battle with the birds, deer, bunnies, and gophers in his garden, and he uses a variety of techniques to keep them at bay, including wiring, gopher traps, and a little pellet gun which he uses to scare the deer off. It’s frustrating to have one’s garden invaded and ruthlessly destroyed, especially when the animals don’t even bother to eat it, so I do sympathize with the complaints in the article. And I’ve even done my fair murdering of garden/farm pests, like raccoons which attacked our chickens, and gophers which devastated our garden. There are few things in this world as depressing as walking into the garden to pick snow peas and seeing the plants yanked, one by one, into the ground by greedy gophers, who seem to wait until the peas are at their peak before they strike.

The thing is, I don’t agree with the way the people the article profiled chose to handle their pest problem. Drowning? Bashing their heads in with hammers? Have these people not heard of humane pest management? Worse, the article seemed almost to be celebrating the ruthless attitude of these people (some of whom asked not be named, which suggests that they are aware that their activities are, you know, not really acceptable). People even talk about the “spiritual journey” involved in cruelly killing their garden pests, as though drowning squirrels in lotus position makes it better, somehow. Indeed, it seemed almost as though the article was designed to soothe the aching consciences of those who kill perfectly harmless and sometimes beneficial animals because they’re bothered by them. The whole article is like an orgy of death, with a final one-off briefly discussing more humane pest management techniques.

Look. I have no problem with killing garden pests. But I think that it should be done quickly, humanely, and with minimal impact to the environment. And, as many of the 325 comments posted before they closed comments pointed out, when you colonize former rural areas with disgusting suburbs, you shouldn’t be too surprised when animals move in on your garden. And you shouldn’t be killing things like snakes, which are beneficial for the garden, or birds, which are also beneficial. Furthermore, tormenting animals to death is seriously sick; and I don’t mean this in the “oh, not the cute little animals” way, but in the “serial killers always start with torturing animals*” way.

The comments section associated with the article exploded, with everything from ghoulish stories to shrill condemnations, but some of the middle ground comments were really interesting. For example, a woman mentioned that she had a serious bunny problem, so she planted clover around her garden. The bunnies ate the clover, and left the garden alone, and everyone was happy. I thought that was an interesting and humane approach to the problem which showed a spark of innovation and a desire to live more harmoniously with nature. Another commenter said she just planted a few extra things each year to accommodate for pest-related losses, which I think is a reasonable approach for a kitchen garden.

As many of the comments pointed out, it’s kind of funny to hear people with second homes bitching about the problems they have, and it’s even funnier when those second homes are in nature, but the owners want a sanitized version of nature. The truth about nature is that it fills a vacuum, whether it’s a vanity garden planted in a second home, or an empty lot in the city. I suspect that some of these people secretly bear their pest battles as a badge of authenticity; they’re so in touch with nature, they’ve even killed it! And, in one instance, taken the brave “spiritual” step of eating it! They’re so in touch with nature, America’s family farmers should just turn in their union cards now.

One of the more idiotic problems with the article didn’t become apparent until D pointed it out to me; the rabbit used in the header photo is a domestic rabbit. As in, a pet. Several of the comments also brought this issue up, somewhat more stridently than they really needed to, since the article certainly didn’t promote cruelty to house rabbits, or anything, but the point is that the Times didn’t even take the time to use a more appropriate graphic, like, say, a deer. Or an actual wild rabbit. Or a squirrel, or…something. I also note that the original title of the article was “Peter Rabbit Must Die,” and it magically changed to “Garden Vigilantes,” setting a very different tone than the first version.

Fascinating, I tell you! Simply fascinating.

*”In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.” (HSUS First Strike)

(Henry Makepeace will be returning next week.)

According to RSPCA statistics, the rate of animal abandonment in Great Britain has climbed by 25% in the last year, which is, quite frankly, mind boggling. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that statistics in the United States are also climbing, given the fact that we tend to lead the way in new and imaginative ways to torment and otherwise abuse animals. (And people, for that matter.)

The thought of abandoning an animal to fend for itself is pretty reprehensible to me. I’d definitely put it on my top five list of awful things that people can do, and I’m wondering which factors are contributing to the rising rate of animal abandonment. The Guardian says it’s a symptom of a throwaway society, which may well be true, although horrifying.

The Guardian article above cited one instance in which someone surrendered a cat to the RSPCA because it didn’t match the new carpet. There are so many things about that statement that are just plain wrong and disturbing that I don’t know where to begin. And now I’m concerned; I don’t think any of my cats match my carpet. Maybe I need to get a feline interior decorator in or something. Fortunately Mr. Bell matches my trim, although he never goes outside, so it’s rarely demonstrated.

I also can’t help but wonder if it’s linked to the toppling economy. In a world where people regard animals as throwaway luxuries, perhaps it shouldn’t be too surprising to see people ditching them when they become expensive or inconvenient. Can’t afford to board your pet while you take a vacation? Turn it loose on the street and hope it’s still there when you get back. Don’t want to pay vet bills? Dump your sick animal on a street corner, or in the garbage, apparently.

I’ve often maintained that people should have to apply for licenses to have children, both from a population perspective and from a desire to protect children from the horrible, horrible things which happen to them. Now I’m thinking people need licenses to keep animals as well, complete with routine home inspections and written tests. Or maybe you’d prefer to just rent your pets.

Not just cats and dogs, either, but also farm animals, especially horses, are being rescued at an alarming rate. Talk about a major commitment; a horse isn’t something one messes around with or enters into lightly, making it all the more astounding to read that farm animal rescue is on the rise. Are people just not prepared for the reality of caring for farm animals, or do we indeed live in a throwaway society?

And people wonder why I’m opposed to breeding, when millions of cats and dogs are abandoned and euthanized in the United States each year. “Oh, but purebreds go to good homes,” they say, ignoring the perils of puppy mills and backyard breeders, and the fact that many rescue animals are actually purebred, with papers and everything. “But if people can’t get purebreds, they wouldn’t get animals,” they say, and I say “so much the better.” They say “some breeders are really ethical,” and I say “yeah, breeding and selling living beings is pretty ethical, if you ask me. At least the victims of the American meat industry have short, albeit miserable lives with no illusions about their place in the world.”

It’s kind of all the more amazing when you think about the fact that the pet industry is huge, and ever-growing, thanks to doting (and neurotic?) pet owners who buy sweaters for their pooches and deluxe kitty towers for their cats, while actresses model the latest trend of carrying dogs in your handbag. How is it that we live in a world where people can spend billions on their animals while millions also go homeless? It’s the same cognitive dissonance, I suppose, that allows us to live in a world where there are homeless people and abandoned children, and it’s a troubling phenomenon, if you ask me.

Given the ingenuity of people trying to capitalize on the green movement, I wouldn’t be surprised to see biodegradable dogs, or carbon neutral budgies, or environmentally friendly ponies, on the market sometime soon.

I was taking some shots of my old Underwood this morning, because the light was good and I needed to clean it and oil it anyway, and Loki decided to make a big nuisance of himself, as usual, so I ended up with a lot of pictures of a typewriter with a giant cat-shaped shadow, or with a chunk of ear or tail.

And then I got this picture, basically by accident:

And it’s just such a cool picture that I had to share it, cat-blogging stigma be damned.

As you can see, my typewriter really needed to be cleaned. Given that it lives in a wooden case most of the time, I don’t understand how it gets so filthy. And I need to do something about the corrosion on the keys, too. As well as tighten the ribbon. I really think it might need the skills of a typewriter professional, actually. Does anyone happen to know one?

When I was fairly young, I was very interested in horse racing, thanks to reading the Black Stallion series by Walter Farley, which has a…very idealistic view of the sport. There is something deeply compelling about watching horses which have been bred to run thundering around a track, muscles pumping, and there’s something especially thrilling about watching an underdog entry pull ahead for the win, and following the bloodlines of famous race horses. And, of course, I was especially enthralled by the Derby, which is probably the biggest event in American horse racing.

As I grew older, I learned that racing has a dark side, and I grew less enchanted by the sport, but I still follow the Derby results. I suspect that a lot of Americans are in my position, feeling repulsion for, yet interest in racing.

This year’s Derby was marred by the collapse of filly Seven Belles at the end of the race; while she came in second, she shattered her front ankles doing it, and she was euthanized on the track. Hearing that news, my heart ached not only for the filly, but for all the horses in the racing industry, which is swift, demanding, and brutal.

I heard on NPR that all of the horses running in this year’s Derby were descendants of Native Dancer, which just goes to underscore how inbred the industry is becoming. Horses are being overbred for racing, with breeders attempting to produce horses which mature quickly, so they can start racing at two, while developing strong bodies which are capable of immense speed and stamina. I can’t help but wonder if the Thoroughbred breed is declining as a result of single-minded focus on a few bloodlines.

I couldn’t find any statistics on injuries at the track, known as breakdowns, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they are up. Not only because of inbreeding, but because horses are being driven further and harder than they were in the past. Most three year old horses are simply not equipped for the grueling work of the Derby, filly or not.

A commentary in the New York Times pointed out that racing seems to get a free pass from animal activists, and while this is not strictly true, it does bear some thinking. It is a brutal sport. Of the horses bred for racing, some make it to the track, while others are sold at auction, and often picked up by people in dressage, jumping, and other equestrian sports. Of the horses that hit the track, only a fraction of those really succeed. Most are brutally worked until they are no longer useful, and then they are killed, because their bloodlines aren’t good enough for breeding.

I read a justification of the racing industry which said that if football injuries and basketball injuries and so forth were as heavily covered and televised as horse racing injuries, those sports would have critics too. But I think that’s a faulty argument. For one thing, most breakdowns are not covered and televised, and we never hear about them. For another, the people who participate in those sports choose to do so, knowing the risks. Thoroughbreds aren’t given a choice; we force them to compete, and therefore we are responsible for what happens to them.

I think people have this image that when a horse “retires,” it gets to go live on a happy farm with other horses. In fact, when racehorses retire, they have a couple of options. They can be slaughtered, they can be sold to people who don’t mind retraining them for other tasks, or they can be relocated to breeding farms.

Certainly, some race horses do have ok lives, especially after their racing careers end and they aren’t spending hours in a stall every day. But the vast majority of them have pretty crappy lives, and I think that’s a great pity. “Animals are not ours for entertainment,” says PETA, and I think they’re right. I can’t quite fathom racing as a “noble sport” anymore, and I don’t see the death of Seven Belles as noble either; I see it as evidence of an endemic problem within our culture and the racing community.

Jane Smiley wrote a piece for the New York Times about racing, arguing that the problem is more with American racing than racing in general, and she may well be right. Americans have a tendency to take things to the next level, and we run our horses fast and hard on dirt, a far cry from the more gentle races on turf in Europe. European horses are champions in their own right, and they are far less likely to break down, perhaps because of a culture which values them intrinsically, in addition to idolizing their speed and grace.

I’m not saying that American trainers, jockeys, breeders, and others in the industry don’t value horses. Obviously, they do, and many people in the industry are quite passionate about Thoroughbreds, because they are remarkable horses. But behind it all, there’s a bottom line.

Win. At any cost.

If there’s one thing in this world I universally loathe, it’s dog owners who can’t be bothered to control their animals, or take care of them. Now, we all know that there are a lot of things I’m not very fond of, but this particular pet peeve (ha ha) of mine has been exacerbated of late, so I’m going to take a moment to rant about it, because I can.

I really don’t understand what is so hard about keeping dogs under control. I think it’s pretty obvious that no one likes loose dogs, because dogs can be dangerous and unpredictable, and even if your dog is nice, your dog can still scare people, or knock children over, or, hey, run out into the street and get hit by a car. It’s really not just a generic distaste for dogs that makes me loathe loose dogs, it’s a concern for animals who are allowed to roam free in situations which could be dangerous for them and others.

Yesterday afternoon, I was nearly savaged by some idiot’s dog which was just roaming about, willy nilly, because their yard doesn’t even have a fence. As it turns out, the dog was also obviously nursing, and new mothers tend to be testy no matter what the species, so there were a few minutes there where I was actually concerned, especially when the dog started snapping at my bag. The owner, of course, was nowhere in sight as I bellowed and careened around the alley trying to shake the dog off.

And I was struck with a moral conundrum. I feel like if a person came at me like that, I would do whatever was necessary to stop that person, including hitting and kicking. Yet, I felt hesitant to do that to the dog, because, well, dogs aren’t people. It’s not the dog’s fault that her owner is reckless and stupid, and being violent with her would probably make the situation even more agitated. I’m not really sure how to defend myself against a dog which is freaking out, especially when I don’t know the cause, but I was intrigued to find that I was unable to go with my gut reaction, which was to repel the dog in any way that I could. Fortunately for me, her puppies started freaking out, so she ran off before I was forced to do something drastic.

Most of the time, loose dogs are just annoying, not dangerous. They poop on bike paths, for example. They bark constantly, which is just obnoxious. Some even growl and snap, but obviously don’t mean to do anything about it. The neighbors down the alley from me have a very young and very sweet dog who jumps out of their yard and tries to follow me whenever I walk past, which is irritating for me, because I feel like I can’t just keep walking, because the dog will follow me, but it’s not like it causes bodily harm. Other loose dogs are just exuberant, with lots of energy, and some people just plain aren’t into that.

Maybe it’s because I grew up on a farm, but controlling dogs is just common sense, to me. I think that the rules of behaviour dictate that you keep your dog on a leash, or in a secured area, because, guess what, not everyone likes dogs, no matter how nice they are. In fact, some people are afraid of dogs. As in really, really afraid, because they were savaged by loose dogs at some point. And dogs chase other animals, like pets, and, say, farm animals. I lost several pets growing up because of irresponsible, reckless, thoughtless dog owners who thought it was perfectly acceptable to let their dogs run loose.

Furthermore, at least in California, it’s the law. You have to keep your dog on a leash or penned, and you can get in trouble if you don’t. And your neighbors will probably hate you a lot less when they’re not dealing with your dog constantly. Pretty much everyone without a dog who lives next door to poorly controlled dogs secretly wishes that their neighbors would slip on banana peels, or receive an IRS audit, or something equally unpleasant. Trust me.

I believe that dog owners who don’t control their animals are stupid, and rude, and reprehensible. Their behaviour exhibits no respect or thought for society, and a profound lack of interest in thinking about other people. It also suggests that they don’t care about their animals that much, given that loose dogs can be rounded up by animal control, and if they make it onto farms, farmers are entitled to shoot them. So think about that the next time you let your dog off the leash “just for a minute,” self righteous dog owners.

The Australian RSPCA is apparently raising quite a few eyebrows with a new advertisement in which viewers see a woman being abused while a dog cries in the background. Supposedly, the ad has reduced some viewers to tears, and it’s already generated rather a lot of controversy, despite the fact that it hasn’t officially aired yet.

The ad is part of an ongoing campaign which is designed to remind Australians that the RSPCA is about a lot more than “rescuing kittens from trees,” and I think it’s a message that deserves to be more widely broadcast, because the fact of the matter is that animal welfare organizations do a lot more than just rescuing animals and finding new forever homes for them.

Many have programs like First Strike, the Humane Society of the United States field program which looks at the link between cruelty to animals and violence towards people. The fact of the matter is that people who abuse animals are a lot more likely to abuse people, with an estimated 37% of animal abusers moving on to humans. And I’m not just talking about slapping people around: most serial killers started with animals.

That’s a chilling fact, and I think it’s one that people really don’t think about enough. People don’t think about it because it is scary, and disturbing, and sad. I think most people agree that animal cruelty really sucks, and shouldn’t happen, but it’s probably hard to make the leap, to realize that because animal cruelty is so closely interconnected with human violence, it’s not just nice to stop animal cruelty, it’s a moral imperative.

Thanks to animal welfare organizations, a lot of law enforcement agencies now have extensive education in animal cruelty, and animal cruelty is taken far more seriously today than it was even 10 years ago. People who are convicted of cruelty to animals can face hefty prison sentences, for example, and they may be ordered to attend rehabilitation programs.

I’ve noticed that foreign commercials in general tend to be more bold and direct about social issues, and it seems to be working pretty well. Maybe we should consider ramming the FCC down a sewer and growing a pair when it comes to advertisements which are designed to raise awareness about the serious problems we face as a society. Perhaps if we did, there wouldn’t be so much suffering in the world.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re fearing that my carefully documented neighbor battles have finally devolved into juvenile namecalling, and you’re probably also wondering why on Earth I would be trash-talking my neighbors with naughty names on the Internet, given that these things have a way of getting back to people. Surely, you think, I wouldn’t be so foolish and irresponsible as to cast aspersions upon my neighbors right here in public.

But, the thing is, my neighbor is a cock.

A small cock, sure, but, still. A cock.

See? Cock. I told you so.

I managed to tear myself away from Buffy for a few hours yesterday to go downtown to pick up my mail and buy some food, which turned out to be a good thing, because I ran into my buddy the rooster, and I picked up the mystery box. At first, the rooster was shy:

But when I said “Hola, Senor Gallito,” because he is a Mexican rooster, he came right over:

He looks like a bantam to me, and he is very friendly and gentle. We are actually old buddies. Sometimes I see him out in the alley with one of his lady friends, and when I remember, I bring a little snicky snack for him. Sure, he crows a little sometimes, but I happen to actually like roosters, so it’s pleasant to hear him crowing in the middle of the night. It lets me know that the earth hasn’t stopped turning, and I appreciate it. He’s also so sweet that it’s hard not to like him; there’s something incredibly endearing about bantam roosters.

It makes me want to have chickens again, maybe just hens to avoid any squabbles.

Eventually, he got bored because I didn’t have any food, and he left:

And I continued on my way downtown.

I apologize for the interruption. We will return to our regularly scheduled programming shortly.

1. stop looking at me

b. no squid. seriouslee.

III. want my ears back.

III.

X. will also take prosthetics

7 . I can has cheezburger?