3 There is one bizarre feature in some rodeo shows where cowboys sit playing a game of cards as if they were in a saloon. A charging bull is entered into the arena in which they continue to coolly play. The cowboy who is the last to lose his nerve and dive for cover wins.
4 Since the mid-1990s, women-only ‘Bows and Does’ hunting excursions have been organized in the U.S. to encourage more women to hunt. See http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3092629&type=story
9 Steve Timm, in The Varmint Hunter Magazine: http://www.varminthunter.org/articles.shtml
10 Jeff Murray: http://www.bowhunting.net/07-June.html
11 See http://www.sportsmansguide.com/tip/tip_read.asp?tid=175407&sid=7 and J. Trout, Jr., ”The P.M. Rendezvous,” in Beards and Spurs Turkey Hunting, (1999): www.rack-mag.com/bsmag/articles/pmrende.htm
16 Thomas (1983: 292) notes however that seventeenth-century scientists such as Walter Charleton, John Ray and John Wallis ”were much impressed by the suggestion that human anatomy, particularly the teeth and the intestines, showed that man had not originally been intended to be carnivorous.” Similarly, Franklin (1999: 178) notes that Rousseau used the scientific and anthropological knowledge of his day to claim that humans were not natural meat eaters but were rather a “frugivorous species.”
17 This rationalization for killing and eating animals is, historically speaking, separate from the most commonly used Old Testament mandate argument; that is, “God permits, allows or even commands it”: ”BE KIND TO ANIMALS BY USING THEM AS INTENDED! Raise them as stock, love them as pets, learn from them through science, wear their skins to comfort us in the cold, eat their dead flesh to nourish the glorious bodies that God gave to us. ANIMALS ARE BEAUTIFUL, EAT THEM!” (www.mtd.com/tasty/-comments3.html). See Thomas (1983: 287-303) for other arguments such as “uneaten” animals would overrun the world or, conversely, would not exist if they were not eaten by humans.
18 When Independent TV News reporters interviewed slaughterers involved in the British foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, they were similarly met by this same “someone’s got to do it” response to the mass slaughter of sheep.
19 Engels (1972 ) contains surprising echoes of this theme. Engels argues that the advent of agriculture altered social relationships in what he characterized as “primitive communism.” He argues that animal agriculture effectively created private property and patriarchal relations to the extent that women suffered “a world historic defeat.” It should be noted that Engels’ use of anthropological data has been severely criticized.
20 Groves (1995: 448) reports that an activist at a North American anti-vivisection rally declared: “I’m not an animal lover. Some animals I like, others I don’t like. To say I’m an animal lover is the same as saying I’m a nigger lover.” This consciousness is far from universal in the animal protection movement. Most animal forums feature sections where contributors can talk about and send pictures of their nonhuman “babies,” or ”furbabies.” In 2003, a spokesperson for a British animal group campaigning against the “culling” of pigeons reportedly told the press that he was “a tax payer and bird lover.” If asked, some activists suggest that they merely employ terms of reference familiar to the public. Others say they are emotionally committed to relationships with nonhuman “companions,” sometimes suggesting – ironically like supporters of animal circuses and zoos - that direct contact between human beings and other animals is beneficial in engendering concern in humans for nonhuman beings. This latter point is discussed by Gold (1995: 105-107). Tom Regan has acknowledged that “the pet issue” is a problem in terms of the logic of animal rights thought since nonhumans such as many types of dogs and cats are hardly suitable candidates for liberation into the “wild.”
24 This information came from the RSPCA, responding to an emailed question by the author. Of course, animal keepers often say they have animals “put down,” or “put them to sleep” rather than killed. What sounds more innocent - and caring - than putting someone to sleep?
1 Norm Phelps is an animal rights activist and author of The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA, The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights and The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible, all published by Lantern Books. He lives in Funkstown, Maryland, USA, with his wife Patti Rogers, and their family of rescued cats. Norm can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
2 Hierarchies of sentience, such as that taught in Jainism, are not relevant here because they are clearly not what Schweitzer had in mind, which is curious because Schweitzer was familiar with Jainism, and the Jain hierarchy of sentience would accommodate itself very comfortably to his view that it is sometimes necessary to do harm, but that we must always strive to do as little harm as possible.
3 The largest scale experiments ever conducted on unwilling or uninformed human beings were, of course, the invasive and lethal experiments conducted by German doctors upon countless thousands of Jews, Roma, and other prisoners during the period of Nazi rule. (See, for example, Annas and Grodin, Lifton, and Spitz.) The most notable American example was the notorious Tuskegee experiment which ran from 1932 until 1972, in which nearly 400 impoverished and poorly educated African-American men suffering from syphilis were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” when in fact they were not being treated at all so that researchers could observe the course of their disease (Brunner). In both of these instances, it was deeply ingrained racist attitudes that made the experiments seem morally acceptable, just as it is deeply ingrained speciesist attitudes that make animal experimentation seem morally acceptable today.
Henry Salt had actually used the phrase in his 1897 book The Humanities of Diet: Some Reasonings and Rhymings: “The logic of the larder is the very negation of a true reverence for life, for it implies that the true lover of animals is he whose larder is fullest of them.” (quoted in International Vegetarian Union) Schweitzer, however, was unaware of this.
1To contact Adam Kochanowicz, e-mail him at: email@example.com
2Also footnoted in Redemption, while cats and dogs represent the majority of animal killed in shelters, No Kill shelters under Winograd's management maintained a No Kill framework for “mice, hamsters, rabbits, goats, chickens, gerbils, and horses who made their way to our shelter” (97)
3Winograd's material is sensitive to the rare exception wherein keeping the animal alive may be less humane than euthanasia. From the No Kill Advocacy Website, maintained by Nathan Winograd: “The decision to end an animal’s life is an extremely serious one, and should always be treated as such. No matter how many animals a shelter kills, each and every animal is an individual, and each deserves individual consideration.” (No Kill Advocacy Center 1)
4The lowercasing of “no kill” is an intentional spelling by Pacelle to distinguish between the general policy of not killing and the specific “No Kill” movement developed by Richard Avanzino as described in Redemption.