DawnWatch.com

Articles in two major papers point to the success of the California foie gras ban in terms of publicizing and legitimizing opposition to foie gras. The Sunday, October 31, Philadelphia Inquirer, included an article about an ongoing dispute involving the serving of foie gras at a steak-house. Apparently the "delicacy" is to be taken off the menu. And the Monday, November 1, Orlando Sentinel, has a large article by the food critic, which takes the foie gras ban as a jump off point for a wider discussion on the way animals are treated before they end up on the dinner table.

Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer story, by Michael Klein, is headed "$100 cheesesteak may lose foie gras after some beefs" (pg B2)

"The sandwich, introduced earlier this month, contains seared foie gras, a $50-a-pound delicacy produced by force-feeding fowl to plump up their livers."

"The specter of foie gras drew a half-dozen sign-wavers to the restaurant's door during dinner hour Friday.

"But it wasn't much of a rally - especially after an executive of the restaurant came out and told protesters that the sandwich probably would be reformulated.

And the article refers to the attention shone on the issue thanks to the California ban:

"Foie gras has become a cause celebre. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month banned production and sale in that state, effective in 2012."

Today's (Monday, Nov 1) Orlando Sentinel article discusses some of the egregious treatment of animals used for food, and is particularly noteworthy as it comes from the paper's restaurant critic. It is headed, "Eating meat a matter of taste. California's so-called foie-gras ban, which would stop the force-feeding of birds, raises the question of how our food gets from farm to table."

"Foie gras (pronounced fwah grah) is French for fat liver. It is the liver of geese or ducks, though most often in U.S. restaurants it is duck liver, from birds that have been force-fed grain.

"It's a touchy subject that brings up the question of how meat-eaters deal -- or don't have to deal -- with the mechanics of getting food from the farm to the table.

"Most would rather not think about that chain of events, thank you, and please pass the turkey. We have others do the dirty work and serve as executioner while we reap the rewards. The closest many ever get to the process is at a seafood restaurant's lobster tank when we point to a lobster, which is then whisked out of our sight to be killed and cooked.

"It's the feeding - not the killing - of geese and ducks that's at the heart of the current foie gras controversy. When the ancient Egyptians feasted on foie gras nearly 4,500 years ago, the delicacy was a natural result of birds consuming extra grain before migration. That extra grain enlarges the liver, increasing its fat content and giving it a buttery texture.

"The current process involves placing a tube down the bird's esophagus and pumping in a corn mash. Animal-rights advocates say it is cruel and inhumane. Producers say that because ducks and geese have no gag reflex the tube causes no harm.

"In September, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, at the initiative of celebrities and animal-rights advocates, signed a bill that will make the production and sale of foie gras produced by forcefeeding illegal in that state beginning in 2012 unless producers can find a new way to gras the foie."

"Some people simply draw a line. Folks who have no problem ordering a big juicy steak will reject a piece of veal because of the common practice of confining calves to small crates to limit movement.

"Ines Hojer says she loves meat and serves and samples a lot of it in her job as a server at Epcot's Biergarten restaurant. But ever since she saw a documentary with explicit pictures of calves in slings she has shunned veal. She also won't eat lamb."

He discusses the different levels to which people take their commitment, and even refers to the treatment of egg-laying hens:

"But the Humane Society of the United States will tell you that egg farming is inhumane to hens, often cramming hundreds of birds into cramped spaces. New guidelines that will soon go into effect will require each hen to have at least 67 square inches, a space smaller than a sheet of 8-by-10 paper."

He writes about a restaurant called "No blood, no bones" at which "Some meals could be served to an unsuspecting meat-eater without them realizing it is not an animal product."

It presents another great opportunity to write an appreciative letter -- praise is far more likely than criticism to get published -- in which you sing the praises of a plant based diet. The Sentinel takes letters at: insight@orlandosentinel.com and recommends, "Each letter should be 175 words or fewer and include the writer's name and day and evening telephone numbers for verification purposes."

The Newark Star Ledger has a superb story in the Sunday October 31 edition, headed, "Egg farm neighbors say system is broken

"Amid the farms of western Warren County, 14 massive cement-block structures sprawl across a broad valley.

"Inside, a million chickens cluck, peck and peer out of narrow, tiered cages. Feed whirs toward them on one conveyor belt, their eggs ride away on another. Underneath, flies breed in piles of manure that can rise head high.

"Executives of ISE America Inc., one of the nation's largest egg producers and the owner of this Franklin Township facility, prefer the term 'confined animal feeding operation.'

"Whatever you call them, huge, highly automated farms like this are where we get an ever-greater share of our meat, milk and eggs. Their number grew nationally by 51 percent to 15,500 from 1982 to 1997, with egg producers leading the way, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

"But with the largest farms generating as much waste a day as a mid-size city, they are also a major source of pollution."

We read about so many flies that houses in nearby areas can look like a different color, and ammonia fumes that cause asthma and bronchitis.

Similar stories in other papers have largely ignored the horrendous cruelty of factory farms, but this article puts at least some focus on the issue:

"Complaints about these large, quasi-industrial operations go beyond pollution. Some critics say animals there are treated like machines -- bred to produce huge amounts of meat, pumped up with drugs, and confined in tiny spaces during their short lives.

"Most hen cages at large facilities allow about 46 square inches per bird. A new program by United Egg Producers calls for that to be increased gradually to at least 67 inches by 2008. Still, that's smaller than a regular sheet of printer paper, and far too small for chickens to stretch their wings.

"'These are arguably the cruelest intensive confinement systems in use,' said Gene Bauston, founder of the New York animal-rights group Farm Sanctuary and an ISE critic.

"There is a trend away from small cages in some European countries. But United Egg Producers points out that old-fashioned backyard flocks, subject to freezing, diseases, predators and cannibalism, did not exactly offer an enviable life or make for pristine food.

You can send an appreciative and veg-friendly letter to the editor, to eletters@starledger.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

The Washington DC based group Compassion Over Killing has released undercover footage from a Perdue chicken slaughterhouse (euphemistically called a "processing plant" in the news stories). The story has been picked up by the Associated Press and has appeared in some papers and on some stations, and on over 40 newspaper and station websites.

The Associated Press story, headed "Animal Rights Group Pursues Perdue" describes undercover footage shot at a plant in Showell:

"The seven-minute videotape shows piles of live chickens being shoved and thrown down a processing line. They are shown hanging upside down as their throats are slit. Afterward, the cut birds flap wildly."

We read, "The group says it will use the tape to press KFC to require humane animal treatment by its suppliers, which include Salisbury-based Perdue."

I hope, if it is on your local paper's website, you will send a quick veggie friendly letter to the editor. Don't hesitate to ask me for help if you have any trouble locating the email address for a letter to your editor. And I am always happy to edit letters.

The Baltimore CBS affiliate gave the story great TV coverage. You can read, or view, the story on line, including some of the undercover footage, at:

Please send a very quick thank you to the station. It is rare for a station to broadcast animal cruelty stories about animals used for food; positive feedback will encourage the station to keep up the good work. The station takes feedback at:

You can send a comment to the editor, specifically about the chicken plant complaint story, at: http://tinyurl.com/4ok7j

You can learn more about the investigation, and the complaint being lodged, on Compassion Over Killing's website at:

The Christian Science Monitor, a widely circulated and highly respected newspaper, has two excellent stories in the Wednesday, October 27 edition, (both Pg 15) on compassionate food choices. One is headed, "One woman's quest to enjoy her dinner without guilt." The other is

"I confess: I sometimes feel guilty when I eat. Should I have paid the extra money for the organic avocados? Found hamburger meat that I'm sure was once a happy and grass-fed cow? Or not eaten the hamburger at all?

"Under the pressure to equate values with actions, even what's on the dinner plate can be an accusing presence."

"Call it a selfish mission - a quest to restore the pleasure of good food by getting rid of that gnawing sense that (according to various pamphlets and websites) my dinner might not be too far removed from clubbing baby seals or hastening the apocalypse via deadly pesticides - but I told my editor I'd delve into that labyrinthine world of ethical eating."

She interviews Michael Pollan, who has written various New York Times Magazine stories on the cruelty, environmental hazards, and danger to human health, of the modern meat supply and who will not buy factory farmed meat. And she talks to Carl Safina, president of the Blue Ocean Institute, who eats fish but tries to indulge in ways that do the least harm to the ocean. And she interviews Tom Regan, an animal rights ethicist and the author of "Empty Cages," who says, "You begin by asking whether your fork is a weapon of violence. It is when it contributes to the unnecessary suffering and death of other life that feels." She notes that he, like many animal-rights activists, is a vegan.

The following paragraphs serve to remind CSM readers of the suffering endured by animals used for human food:

"But even he admits there's a spectrum, and he has no trouble enumerating the worst offenders: hog farms that keep pigs in tiny cement breeding cages, where they are unable to turn around; the crates in which calves are kept, devoid of sunlight or fresh air; the dark, 12-inch by 20-inch battery cages with six or seven egg-laying hens."

She also talks to people who eat largely, though not strictly, vegetarian diets.

"They add a 'raised on pasture' label to their meat - something l I'll look for the next time I shop.

"My decision isn't likely to satisfy animal-rights ethicists, many of whom think we'll one day look back at meat-eating the way we now look at slavery.

"And I can't say I'll be certain that every piece of meat I'm served in a restaurant or friend's home meets my standards. But I'd hope that changing what I buy and where I buy it will send a tiny message about my values when it comes to dinner.

Jennifer Wolcott's article, "Cage-free' eggs: not all they're cracked up to be?" opens:

"The egg has long been known as 'nature's perfect food.' It's versatile, convenient, cleverly packaged, and was once accepted by many vegetarians as a form of nourishment that does no harm to animals. But in recent years that reputation has been under attack.

"Chickens are perhaps the least protected of farm animals. All farm animals are exempt from the federal Animal Welfare Act, but unlike other types of livestock, chickens are also exempt from individual state laws prohibiting cruelty to animals and from the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

"All of which sends up red flags to both careful cooks and ethical eaters. They are not only worried about the quality of the eggs they eat, but also with the quality of life of the chickens that produce those eggs. That's why a fraction of consumers select - and some spend more for - egg cartons that carry labels like 'Animal Care Certified' or 'cage free.' They may not understand exactly what these labels mean, but they hope they offer some assurance that the eggs come from hens living in healthy and humane conditions.

"The logo 'Animal Care Certified' today appears on about 80 percent of egg cartons sold in American supermarkets. It means that the hens who laid the eggs were treated in accord with guidelines created by the United Egg Producers, the umbrella group which oversees most of the large, commercial egg producers in the US. But in August, the animal-advocacy organization Compassion Over Killing took issue with the 'Animal Care Certified' logo.

"'The logo is a scam,' says Paul Shapiro, executive director of Compassion Over Killing. 'It conveys the message that the birds are humanely cared for, which couldn't be further from the truth.' The guidelines allow the hens to live in 'battery cages' (wire cages stacked in tiers and lined in rows in large warehouses) with as many as eight hens in a cage of 67 square inches. There often is not room, animal advocates complain, for the birds even to flap their wings.

"The UEP guidelines also allow the practice of trimming chicken's beaks to prevent excessive pecking, as well as 'force molting,' which involves underfeeding hens to extend their capacity to lay eggs."

(I strongly recommend checking out one of COK's websites, http://www.EggScam.com , to learn more about this issue)

There is also a nice quote from Karen Davis of United Poultry Concerns (http://www.upc-online.org) who reminds us that chickens are "living beings with hearts and nervous systems, pain receptors like those of humans."

"Both Shapiro and Davis omit eggs from their diets altogether. But for those consumers who can't forgo a morning omelet, they suggest choosing eggs from hens raised as close to their natural habitat as possible. Natural food stores usually carry these eggs - but even so, consumers must read the fine print."

Unfortunately, the article's descriptions of what that print means are a little generous. Wolcott tells us that "organic certified" means the chickens have "plenty of access" to the outdoors and "free-range" means they "were allowed to roam outdoors." However the COK website tells us that "free-range" chickens may have access to "little more than a single, narrow exit leading to an enclosure, too small to accommodate all of the birds at once."

"But 'cage free' doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of quality of life for hens. Eggs labeled 'cage free' often come from hens packed side by side in massive sheds, Shapiro says. Their access to the outdoors may be only through a tiny opening."

It presents another great opportunity for appreciative letters recommending plant-based diets.

MARYLAND BEAR HUNT

They say progress is achieved with two steps forward and one step back. Yesterday we had a sad step back as Maryland held its first bear hunt in 51 years. New Jersey lifted its 33 year ban last year (though whether or not there will be more hunts is in question). Maryland's hunt ended the same day it began because of the enormous success of the hunters. They killed twenty bears in one day; there was concern that if the hunt went on a second day they would go way over their quota of 30 bears.

The story is in many papers including the Tuesday October 26 Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, and Los Angeles Times. The coverage tends to be balanced but the headline of the Los Angeles Times story is troublesome as it supports the ridiculous notion that the killing of 30 random bears, in an estimated population of 500, was really an attempt to control "nuisance bears" (those that break into people's garbage and otherwise damage human property) rather than a nod to the powerful hunting lobby. The various descriptions of the bears starting to run when they heard hunters reveals how real a threat those that were killed posed to humans.

The troublesome heading of the Los Angeles Times piece is "Bearing Down on a Problem; Other means of limiting Maryland's ursine population failed, so the state gives hunters their first shot in 51 years. Day One is a big success." (Pg A8) It opens with the description of the first kill of the day, a cub:

"Just around daybreak, David Ciekot staked out a spot here in the western woods near a town called Friendsville, climbed a white oak tree and waited under a heavy sky the color of gun metal.

"For all the months of protests and legal wrestling that had led to this moment -- the opening of a planned six-day bear-hunting season in a state that had banned the practice for 51 years -- it only took half an hour for Ciekot to get what he came for.

"At 7 a.m., with a single shot from 40 yards away, he downed a 9-month-old female black bear. It weighed in at 84 pounds."

Michael Markarian, president of the Fund for Animals: "There is no justifiable reason to allow hunters to shoot 30 bears. It's not going to solve the nuisance problem. It doesn't teach people to store food away from bears. It doesn't reimburse farmers for their crops."

The article ends with a description of another kill:

"One of the lucky hunters was 59-year-old Sheridan Green, an IRS retiree.

"He was perched on a grade when he saw a 135-pound male bear lumber into an acorn grove. The creature lifted its paw, and Green lodged a fatal bullet where he'd hoped, through the lung.

"The bear fell, and Green had his prize: a skin to turn into a rug for his wife."

"The hunt was supposed to stop when 30 bears were killed. Paul Peditto, a Maryland Department of Natural Resources official in charge of the hunt, said he decided to stop before reaching that limit because he worried about public reaction if it was exceeded."

"Ciekot said the bear nearly got away: He spooked it by moving his Winchester .270-caliber rifle, and it ran off about 40 yards. Then, Ciekot said, the bear turned around and looked at him, seemingly unsure whether the hunter was a threat. 'If [the bear] had been in a group that had been hunted, [it] probably would have kept running,' Ciekot said.

"Instead, it stopped, and Ciekot shot it through the chest. The bear ran a short way and then collapsed, Ciekot said.

'I'm pretty proud to be the first one to bring one in,' Ciekot said. 'I mean, it's the first modern-day bear hunt in Maryland."

Maryland Natural Resources officials, from left, Mike Fazenbaker, Paul Peditto, Rob Harvey and Pete Jayne carry a gutted black bear. (Ricky Carioti -- The Washington Post)

The Baltimore Sun article is headed: "With 20 bears killed in a day, Md. ends first hunt in 51 years."

It gives similar information though ends with a description of another kill:

"Tim Gordon, 27, a machinist from Garrett County, and his brother, Larry Gordon Jr., a 21-year-old welder, also bagged a bear. They could hardly see through the dense mist when a 200-pound bear emerged from the laurel about 30 feet away.

"'It was real foggy, and the bear was right up close by the time we saw it,' said Tim Gordon. 'It smelled us and turned to run away. I said, 'Shoot,' and my brother hammered him. That's fun. I'm tickled for him, because he's never been bear hunting before. He hugged me, he was so happy.'"

You can read the full Sun article at:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.hunting26oct26,1,1441987.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

As the animal protection community grows it is important that we are an increasingly visible and vocal section of society. I hope people will use yesterday's tragic and widely unpopular events to speak out on behalf of compassion for members of other species.

I am sure most of us saw the dispiriting footage last week of geese getting blown out of the sky by John Kerry. Sadly, in a country where an estimated 6% of the population hunts, we have two hunters aiming for the presidential office. Maureen Dowd wrote a superb piece on the issue. It appeared in the Sunday, November 24, New York Times.

"In yet another attempt to prove to George W. Bush that he is man enough to run this country, John Kerry made an animal sacrifice to the political gods in a cornfield in eastern Ohio last week.

"Four dead geese are not too high a price to pay for a few rural, blue-collar votes in a swing state. As long as Mr. Kerry doesn't slip and ask Teresa to purée the carcasses into foie gras.

"Tromping about in a camouflage costume and toting a 12-gauge double-barreled shotgun that shrieked 'I am not a merlot-loving, brie-eating, chatelaine-marrying dilettante,' the Democratic nominee emerged from his shooting spree with three fellow hunters proclaiming, 'Everybody got one, everybody got one,' showing off a hand stained with goose blood.

"One of my first presidential trips was going to Texas one weekend to cover Ronald Reagan hunting with James Baker at Mr. Baker's ranch. President Reagan came back proudly empty-handed. He didn't want to shoot any small animals. He had his faults, but he never overcompensated on macho posturing, thinking that blowing away a flock of birds in borrowed camouflage for the cameras or bombing a weakened dictator and then sashaying in Top Gun gear for the cameras would give him more brass.

"Just as W. needed to shock and awe to prove he was no wimp, Mr. Kerry needed to shoot and eat. As Jodi Wilgoren wrote in The Times, a Kerry aide assured reporters that 'two of the birds would soon be sent back to Mr. Kerry for consumption.'"

Regardless of how one plans to vote on November 2, Kerry's hunting trip, covered in every paper, brings up many issues that we can write about on behalf of the animals. One could just back up Dowd's point and condemn "macho posturing" at the expense of the innocent. Or those of us devoted to the fight against factory farming also have an opening here. I heard that popular vegan talk show host Don Imus was so disgusted by Kerry's hunting trip that he said he no longer intends to vote for him. I appreciate the sentiment behind the remark. But nobody was under the impression that Kerry was vegetarian. Would it have been better for the animals if he had gone to the supermarket that day and bought some turkeys who had lived in torturously confining conditions on factory farms and died horribly in slaughterhouses? (Birds are exempt from the federal Humane Slaughter Act).

Please consider a letter to the New York Times (letters@nytimes.com ) or even better, to your local paper (where you are highly likely to get published) reminding readers that the birds on their dinner plates suffered far longer than those we had the misfortune of seeing John Kerry kill and which he says he intends to eat.

Sadly, Kerry has pledged that his personal taste for hunting will be reflected in pubic policy. One can read his Sportsman's Bill of Rights at

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/billofrights.html and learn that "A Kerry-Edwards administration will work to open millions of new acres of land to public hunting and fishing by providing better funding for state walk-in access programs." (Thanks to Stu Chaifetz for that link.) The Bush administration has already, according to a recent article by Matthew Scully, "opened 60 national wildlife refuges to sport hunters, including a dozen or so last month just in time for the hunting season." Refuges!

As I noted above, it is dispiriting to see the two viable presidential candidates show off their lack of concern for our fellow creatures. I do not wish, however, to give the impression that I think that since neither shows kindness towards animals it will not matter to the animals which one wins. The Kerry-Edwards team has a compellingly different record and stance on environmental issues. That matters immensely because many more animals die from loss of habitat, for example that which would follow the drilling in the Arctic refuge that the Bush administration has been pushing, than from hunting expeditions. Also, on the issue of factory farming, which affects billions of animals per year who live and die in horrendous conditions, there is good news from the challenging ticket, particularly from Kerry's running mate, John Edwards. According to his website, at http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=373 :

"During the primary Senator Edwards called for a national moratorium on the new construction and expansion of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)." That is an extremely strong stance on a vital issue. The prospect of an administration that would actively discourage the proliferation of factory farms is heartening.

I felt I should acknowledge some important differences between the candidates since I was sending out a column that pointed to their basic similarity in their personal treatment of members of other species. I hope Bush and Nader supporters will not take that as a DawnWatch endorsement of Kerry. I am very open to hearing arguments as to how a different vote would be better for the animals and would happily share major media stories on the issue. Unfortunately, I doubt there will be any, as the animal protection movement is yet to be seen as a voting block that can affect presidential elections.

I do hope animal advocates will increase our visibility and also impart important messages by using the stories about the candidates' hunting trips as jump off points for letters to the editor furthering the message of compassion for other species. We can remind readers about the suffering they support every time they eat a factory farmed turkey burger when they could be eating a veggie burger.

Don't hesitate to ask me for help if you have any trouble finding the email address for a letter to your editor. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

DOCTOR PHIL SHOWS OFF RESCUE DOG AND TELLS VIEWERS TO ADOPT

As two men vie for the most powerful job in the USA by showing off their prowess at shooting animals, another extremely powerful man is doing what he can to save some. Every day, Dr Phil speaks to millions of American citizens and influences their choices.

Dr. Phil shows off his son Jordan's new puppy who was abandoned at a construction site and rescued by SPCA LA. "If you're looking for a pet, call a shelter. There are a lot of dogs that need homes," Dr. Phil says.

(Note, unfortunately the show, or at least the website, got the information wrong. The puppy was rescued and adopted out by Maryann Lagana who is an independent rescuer working with Animals Anonymous.)

I received the following alert from Debby Tanzer, though I don't know from whom it originated . But the line above, from the website, backs it up:

"Yesterday on the "Dr. Phil" program, he brought out an adorable mixed breed puppy at the end of the show informing the audience that his family had just adopted the puppy from their local shelter. He told the story of how the mother and puppies had been rescued from a dump. He then advocated STRONGLY both for adoption of shelter animals AND for the adoption of "mutts." It was a great statement and considering the Dr. Phil show is watched by millions, should do much to help shelter dogs.

"Please write a short letter thanking Dr. Phil for this extremely
positive action."

The Doctor Phil show takes comments at:

http://www.drphil.com/email/email_phil_show.jhtml

An enthusiastic response will let him know that there are plenty of animal friendly viewers who will be interested in coverage of animal protection issues.

The Wednesday, October 20, Miami Herald has a front page story on the attempt to bring slot machines to Florida greyhound race-tracks. It is an attempt to keep a dying, and deadly, industry afloat.

A proposal to allow more gaming in Florida is back on the ballot this November -- for the fourth time since 1979 -- but this time proponents are betting they have found a way to win.

On Amendment Four, voters statewide will be asked to authorize separate referendums in Miami-Dade and Broward counties that will seek local voters' approval for Las Vegas-style slot machines at seven area racetracks and jai-alai frontons....

Letting Miami-Dade and Broward voters have the final say is key: Previous gambling initiatives that were defeated statewide passed in those counties. Proponents hope to sway voters across Florida by earmarking slot machine tax proceeds as extra funds for school districts across the state.

According to studies paid for by advocates, that revenue could amount to $438 million in 2006, the first year of operations. That figure is based on an average tax rate of 34.5 percent in the six states where 'racinos' operate and anticipates $1.27 billion in revenue.

But opponents -- who include Gov. Jeb Bush, Christian groups, some law enforcement organizations and animal rights activists -- say gaming breeds social ills such as compulsive gambling and crime whose costs far outweigh fiscal gains."

The line above is the only reference in the article to animal rights opposition.

The general public knows little about the cruelty behind the greyhound industry and this front page story provides a great opportunity for us, with letters to the editor, to share some information. You'll find information on the way the dogs are housed, and the frequent fate of those who do not prove to be good racers or whose racing days are past -- death by gunshot or in vivisection laboratories -

The Monday, October 18, Los Angeles Times has story on the front page of the Metro Section (B1) headed "Minor Disneyland Changes Make It More of a Jungle Out There." The opening line is, "Hippos beware: The Jungle Cruise skippers are packing heat again."

"And a caution to humans: Disneyland engineers are devising a safe way to return the stomach-churning spins to the teacups in the Mad Tea Party ride.

"Many fans are cheering what appears to be a turnaround on political correctness, after watching the park in recent years not just disarm the skippers and de-spin the teacups, but also strip mock frontier rifles from Tom Sawyer Island and stop marauding pirates from threatening maidens in Pirates of the Caribbean.

"Disneyland officials describe the changes as a move to recapture some of Walt Disney's original vision by "restoring the magic" to the park as it gears up for its 50th birthday next year."

"As recently as one day before the Oct. 1 return of guns, Jungle Cruise skippers said guests were complaining about the notable absence of the Smith & Wessons -- even though they'd been taken away in 2001.

"At least once a week somebody would get off the boat and say, 'Hey, what happened to the guns?' " said Sherri Ribble, a second-generation Jungle Cruise skipper.

"Since their return, Ribble said, some passengers on the cruise have spontaneously burst out in applause after she fired blanks at the hippopotamuses.

"One youngster even thanked Ribble for saving her life by fending off the hippos.

"The whole experience was so true-to-life for 4-year-old Andrew Hansen, a visitor from Washington state, that he hid behind his mother as he got off the ride.

"'It really feels like for the 50th anniversary, we're bringing the adventure back,' said Ribble, who recalls riding the African-themed cruise when she was 8 and "thinking I was a goner for sure."

"Her father, Rip, who was a skipper in the 1960s, said he was happy to see the change.

"'When I was working there, the kids would start holding their ears when you started into hippo territory,' he said. 'It's a shame that in this day and age because of gang activity and political correctness and animal rights, people took offense to shooting at the hippo. But really, it was all make-believe.'

"And even though it was make-believe, that scene was an iconic moment on one of the park's most popular attractions, said skipper Gerry York."

In ways, the return of fake shootings to Disneyland is a minor concern, given what animal advocates come up against every day regarding our society's treatment of animals. However, millions of children visit Disneyland every year, and it is sad to think of the need to kill hippos as one of the messages being delivered to impressionable minds as part of "the magical experience" of Disneyland. Also, DawnWatch encourages advocates to take every opportunity to put a good word in the press for the animals, and this lead story in the Los Angeles Times gives us that opportunity. You might like to take a look at an article from the New Scientist, telling us that hippos are "the latest of the planet's megafauna to be in danger of extinction." It is at: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994109

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

PETA has called for a boycott on Australian wool and the big trendy American retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch (under threat of PETA protests) has joined the campaign. The campaign has yet to make international news but I found over 50 stories about the boycott in the Australian media. You can take a look at many of them by going to

The story in the national paper, The Weekend Australian, headed, "Anger at US firm's wool ban" (Saturday, Oct 16, pg 8), tells us:

"Abercrombie, which is based in Columbus, Ohio, and aims at the top end of the young fashion market, said it would not support the Australian merino market until Australian graziers stopped the grisly practice of mulesing young sheep and exporting live stock." You can read the full story at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11085928%255E2702,00.html

Efforts to ban Australia's live export market, in which hundreds of thousands of animals are transported in abominable conditions to die by means that do not meet Australian standard welfare practices, made front page international news last year when a ship was stranded at sea with thousands of animals dying on board from heat and dehydration. The practice of mulesing, in which strips of flesh are cut of the hindquarters of live sheep, without the administration of pain relief, is less well publicized. The PETA website http://savethesheep.com has much information on the cruelty involved in both, and on PETA's demands and the progress of the campaign.

One of the recent news stories ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1221333.htm ) tells us that the Australian Veterinary Association has condemned the boycott and defended the practice of mulesing. This is disappointing, given the weight the general public might put on the views of that organization, but it is not surprising. Here in the United States animal advocates have consistently faced opposition from the American Veterinary Medical Association, for example when pushing for bans on sow gestation crates that house sows in cages so small that they cannot turn around or lie down with limbs outstretched. It is the industry, not the animals, that pay vet bills.

Also of interest is another breaking story: The RSPCA is distancing itself from the boycott. RSPCA president Hugh Worth is quoted: "You can't sit down with animal rights people, you just cannot sit down. They're irrational, they will not discuss anything with you, because they claim to occupy the high moral ground and therefore, it is all or nothing in their view." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1222385.htm

Interestingly, the RSPCA also objects to the export market, but has had little success. Apparently Wirth is objecting not, in this case, to the animal rights message, but to the methods -- the methods that will no doubt finally bring the industry to the table with Wirth. It's a classic good-cop-bad-cop situation, though Wirth seems unlikely to acknowledge it as such.

The Australian takes letters at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aus_letters.htm . And I hope Australian activists who have seen the story in their local papers, as well as activists in other countries when the story finally appears, will grab the opportunity to write letters against live export, and perhaps in favor of lifestyles that avoid contributing to cruel industries. I am always happy to assist if you have any trouble finding the email address for a letter to the editor, and I am happy to edit letters. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

I was shocked to hear, on the generally progressive NPR show "Living On Earth," a segment called "Flipper's Follies," that turned out to be something close to a fluff piece for marine parks. Host Steve Curwood interviewed Sally Kestin, who wrote the superb Florida Sun Sentinel series on marine parks. But for the segment she found little to criticize besides the conditions some animals are kept in at some parks-- sometimes with bad vet care and bad chlorine balances. She gave the impression that Sea World is fabulous. The basic issues -- the capture of the animals and life in a tank, were not addressed.

Then we heard from a man who caught the first Shamu, killing the whale's mother in the process, and founded the Seattle Aquarium. He, when pushed hard, said he was sorry that when he harpooned Shamu's mother, in the process of getting her baby away from her, she died. But otherwise he expressed no regrets or concerns about his profession.

The piece briefly refers to those who do not think marine mammals should be captured or bred for human entertainment, but we do not hear from such people.

You can listen to the show, or read the full transcript on line at:
http://www.loe.org/ETS/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=33&typeID=18&itemID=226&User_Session=c8ae3a190fc59fd5da256e26b9e5fe03#transcript
or at the following Tiny URL (for which I thank Kimber Gorall)
http://tinyurl.com/3pz7t

The host and executive producer, Steve Curwood, asks for comments at:
Comments@loe.org

Please politely (we would like this show to become a friend not an adversary) express your disappointment

A good resource for information on dolphin captivity is the website for Ric O'Barry's (Flipper's trainer) "The Dolphin Project" http://www.dolphinproject.org/. On the front page of that website, next to horrifying photos of dolphin slaughter, we read,
"The shocking truth: Members of the dolphin captivity industry work side by side with Japanese whalers, thereby fuelling the continued existence of the barbaric practice of butchering dolphins..."

The biggest news story in animal rights this week, which comes from the UK, makes many of us uncomfortable. The grave of Gladys Hammond, who died in 1997 at the age of 82, has been desecrated, and most of her body has been removed. She was the mother in law of Chris Hall, one of the owners of Darley Oaks Farm, which breeds guinea pigs for laboratory experimentation at various labs including Huntingdon Life Sciences. Animal Rights activists have been campaigning against the farm with increasing vehemence. Two animal rights activists were arrested for the crime earlier this week, but have since been released, one of them calling the act "repulsive." However, it is reasonable to suspect that not all of those who have been campaigning against the farm with little result, for years, feel the same way. It seems likely that the desecration is the latest effort by one or two of the frustrated campaigners.

The story has been in every UK paper almost every day this week, making the front page of the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. It has also appeared in various US and Australian newspapers.

Many animal rights activists are repulsed by the act and see Hammond's grave as an unfair target. Are we not reminded every year at Thanksgiving that we cannot be held responsible for the ethical conduct of our families? I am amongst those who worry about the impact on the image of our movement, worry about giving the impression that animal rights activists have no normal codes of human decency.

But then, the headline of today's (Friday, October 15) Daily Telegraph article on the topic proclaims, "Family may shut guinea pig farm after grave desecration." We read, "Chris Hall said the attack on the grave of his mother-in-law had taken the five-year protest against his guinea pig farm 'to another level' and the family was talking about whether to continue."

Since nothing else worked, there are surely those who will feel that the cost in image would be well spent on the thousands of animals per year who may be saved from torturous deaths.

Perhaps the most interesting article on the issue is a column in the Friday, October 15, Independent, headed, "Beware Fanatics who value humans less than animals." Terence Blacker's commentary piece opens:

"A simple formula lies behind the event that took place recently in a graveyard in Staffordshire, we learnt this week: the lives and well- being of thousands of living creatures were worth more than one inanimate object. The fact that the object in question consisted of the bones of an 82-year-old woman whose corpse had been dug up and stolen, and that the living creatures were guinea pigs, was by the way. There was only one act of cruelty here - that against the guinea pigs.

"In one of Jeremy Vine's more startling interviews on his Radio Two show, Keith Mann, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, was asked about the theft of the body of Gladys Hammond, allegedly by animal rights activists. While he had no knowledge of that particular event, the ALF man said he could confirm it was the kind of stunt (his word) that fell within the remit of his organisation, being non-violent and involving an inanimate object. In fact, if the action had brought to public attention the millions of innocent animals that are tortured and killed daily, then it had been entirely worthwhile.

"And so, in a perverse sense, it was. Vine must have been expecting at least a small amount of dutiful hand-wringing about the bones of poor old Mrs Hamilton, the distress to her family and so on, because he had no objection when Mann moved into propaganda mode. Whoever the grave-robbers were, it was the ALF that reaped a welcome harvest of publicity.

"Threats work. Bullying pays off. If the position of the animal rights lobbyist was predictable, that of the BBC was depressing. Facing both ways at once, it managed to express disapproval of grave-robbing as a promotional tactic while playing along with it. As Mann pointed out, he would never have been invited to express his views were it not for the desecration of a grave in Staffordshire."

Blacker goes on to slam the "extreme" positions of the animal rights movement. But that first portion of his article could have been written by anybody, even from within our movement, familiar with the way media works. Sadly, the animal rights movement gets very little coverage except when it behaves badly. And the coverage of those bad acts sometimes has very positive effects. It is hard not to trace the resurgence of public interest in foie gras cruelty, leading to its recent ban in California (to be implemented 2012) to the unpleasant action taken against the restaurant, car, and home of a California restaurant owner, which got front page unsympathetic coverage in September last year.

The front page story did not lead to the ban, but it led to a flood of letters to the editor against foie gras, and to television coverage which showed Northern Californians the horrific process behind the delicacy, and set the stage for the bill to ban it.

As Blacker rails against the press for giving the animal rights activists coverage, he, ironically, falls into the same trap, beginning a paragraph, "Even to those of us who believe that more should be done for animal welfare, particularly in the production of food..."

If not for the grave desecration, would Blacker have made any mention of the poor treatment of animals who die for human food?

Some may agree with the position Blacker outlines in his opening paragraph, feeling that a corpse is nothing more than an inanimate object and that the horror (as today's Guardian calls it), and "torture" (as a Daily Mail article called it) endured by the family is little compared to what the animals have endured at the hands of the human family. But public opinion runs contrary to that view, so I would not recommend putting it forward in the hope of scoring points for the animals. However, no matter how one feels about the desecration, it would be wrong for those of us who have committed ourselves to doing what we can to help members of other species, to make no attempt to shift the coverage. We can express respect for Gladys Hammond, and disapproval of the desecration, while also expressing discontent with the slow pace of change in the world of drug testing and while calling for an end to farms that breed experimental subjects. Those who write well (either letters or op-eds) on the scientific arguments against animal testing have been handed an opportunity by the desecrators who have made the front pages. That opportunity is enhanced by it being a guinea pig farm being protested, those animals so traditionally popular a choice that their name has become the colloquial term for test subjects. Ironically, one of the most important medical advances of all time would not have come to be if penicillin had been tested on guinea pigs; it kills them.

Mindful of the importance of our movement's image, yet aware of the animal's desperate need for press, I urge activists to write respectful, even sympathetic, letters that shift the focus from the suffering of the human farm-owning family, to the suffering of the animals. You will find links to many of the stories that have appeared on the issue at:

And here are email addresses for letters to the editor of some of the major UK papers:

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

There is a disappointing article in the Friday, October 15, New York Times, headed "'New Fur' Doesn't Look as if It Ever Kept a Mink Warm"

"On catwalks, in magazines and along big city streets, fur is back, only it is not your grandmother's mink anymore.

Zested-up in flaming colors, attached to sweaters and denim, stretched and sliced, mixed with feathers and chiffon, today's fur possesses only a passing resemblance to the seriously grown-up coats the ladies wore to El Morocco on a winter's eve. Today's fashion designers are embracing fur, draping their models in light, unorthodox creations and, in so doing, enticing a young generation of fur buyers."

We are given statistics on fur's resurgence and information on the strategizing behind it:

"In fact, fur sales jumped to $11.3 billion worldwide in 2002, from $8.1 billion in 1998, according to the British Fur Trade Association, even though prices have been dropping, thanks to the growth of fur farming in Asia. But fur's resurgence, its transformation from fuddy-duddy to hip, did not happen spontaneously. It was planned, in large part, in a simple but stylish Danish farmhouse on the outskirts of Copenhagen, which is home to Saga Furs, a joint marketing organization of Norwegian and Finnish fox and mink breeders.

"With fur sales slumping in the late 80's and early 90's, Saga Furs, which was founded here in 1954, set out to revive fur's image by reinventing fur pieces and getting them into the right hands. It did so by discreetly wooing high-profile fashion designers and hand-picked design students, 2,000 in all, offering them sumptuous visits to the idyllic farmhouse, chef included, and handing them free mink and fox pelts to experiment with.

"Because so few designers had experience working with fur, Saga Furs created a laboratory for the designers and then brought in its chief fur designer and technicians. Designers could brainstorm away and Saga's team would help them shape, dye, cut, sew, flatten or weave the fur, turning it into a fabric that could be attached to all sorts of clothes.

"Jean Paul Gaultier and designers from Prada, Missoni and Versace, among others, have all flown to Denmark over the past 15 years to learn about fur. For them, fur offers a new material to work with, one that is soft, pliable and three-dimensional."

It is dispiriting, but gives us an opportunity to remind the editor and readers that fur is not just a fun fashion item.

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

The October 11 edition of Newsweek, on the stands now, has an article, by Julie Scelfo, headed "Real Fur Is Fun Again. It's less expensive and more popular than ever. But as young people snuggle up, where are the protesters?" (Page 48.)

"On a visit to Fifth Avenue's chic Henri Bendel department store last week, Pietra Jones caressed a spiky, oval-shaped hat made from fox, dyed lilac and purple. 'I love fur!' purred Jones, 26, unconcerned about the process that turns living creatures into fashion accessories. 'My sister is totally into PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] and she reams me out every time I buy fur, but I can't stop myself. I know it's un-PC, but when I shop I really separate myself from thinking about the animal.'"

"Fur is also, of course, controversial. Back in the early 1990s, no red-carpet affair seemed complete without a paint-hurling protester redesigning a celeb's sable coat. But for twentysomethings who are too young to remember Joan Rivers's getting doused on her way to the opera, fur has little stigma."

"Since 1999, sales have climbed steadily, reaching a record $1.8 billion in 2003, and are expected to be even higher this year. Much of that revenue will come not from high-end couture, but from lower-priced accessories, like BCBG's $178 rabbit poncho and Coach's $400 coyote-trimmed duffle bag."

"As the fur continues to fly off shelves, it remains to be seen if the paint will fly again, too."

Please send Newsweek a letter appreciative of the coverage. But let's let the editor know that there are plenty of people who don't find real fur fun.

They might give you some pointers, though please remember that shorter letters are more likely to be published. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.

I send a big thank you to Susan Lettween Carr for making sure we saw this article.

"Black bears in Maryland have made such a good recovery from endangered status that now they’re considered a nuisance. In a

couple of weeks, the state will hold its first bear hunt in over 50 years. Kathleen Koch talked to people who think the hunt is needed, and others who say it’s unnecessary and cruel."

NEXT says, "If you’d like to drop us a line, our e-mail address is Next@CNN.com "

Watch if you can, and please thank the show for covering the issue -- and put a good word in for the bears. Positive feedback for coverage of animal protection issues will encourage more of it. The public will not protest the hunt if they don't know about it -- that goes for all animal cruelty issues.

Today's Baltimore Sun (October 8) has an update on the hunt. An article headed "Court to hear arguments Oct. 18 in lawsuit to stop bear hunt" tells us:

"A court will hear arguments Oct. 18 on a lawsuit to halt Maryland's bear hunt - one week before the hunt's opening day...

The Fund for Animals and Humane Society of the United States filed the lawsuit Sept. 27."

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

Wonderful news from the Thursday, October 7, Boston Herald. An article by David Wedge, headed, "Pol: Circus animals subjected to abuse" tells us about a proposed ban on the use of exotic animals in circuses in Massachusetts. It would be the first state-wide ban. The article is tight, so I will paste the whole thing below. You can also find it on line at:

Ringling will no doubt be responding, so some supportive letters would be great. The Boston Herald takes letters at: letterstotheeditor@bostonherald.com

For information you might want for your letter (though shorter letters are the more likely to be published), the article below mentions www.circusspotlight.org . And the site http://www.circuses.com is particularly good for anti circus information. It includes video of elephant training sessions where elephants are being hit with bullhooks.

Always include you full name, address, and telephone number when sending a letter to the editor.

I send a big thank you to California activist Priscilla Gargalis, for making sure we saw this article. Here it is:

The circus is coming to town, but a state lawmaker - armed with video evidence he says shows show trainers tormenting elephants - wants to throw a spotlight on animal abuse under the Big Top.

Citing reports of abuse by trainers, including the 1999 drowning of a baby Asian elephant and a recent videotaped beating in Oakland, Calif., Sen. Robert Hedlund is calling for Massachusetts to become the first state to ban circus animals.

"I don't consider myself Mr. Kneejerk politically correct, which some would put this in the category of, and I'm by no means a raving animal rights activist. But there is a valid point about the inhumane nature in which many of these animals are treated,'' said Hedlund (D-Weymouth).

Hedlund's proposal calls for a statewide ban on the use of non-domesticated, exotic animals in circuses. Many cities and towns prohibit circus animals but there is no statewide ban. Hedlund's bill was originally launched last year but died in the Legislature.

Armed with new evidence of alleged animal abuse, Hedlund and the grassroots group circusspotlight.org are making another push. The group was expected to show videos and pictures of abuse at a press conference today as the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus sets up for a series of shows at the FleetCenter.

Among the evidence is an August videotape of a Ringling Bros. trainer using a 3-foot pole to smack an Asian elephant on the trunk - the animal's most sensitive body part. There is also video of a drowned baby elephant, and federal documents reveal that a 2-year-old sick elephant died after being forced to perform against a veterinarian's advice. Ringling officials could not be reached for comment.

Hedlund said zoo experts have sided against the circus on the issue, saying their methods of transporting and training animals are cruel and arcane.

Those of us who supported the bill are sure that producers will not find a way to gently coax ducks to eat enough food to make their livers grow to ten times the normal size.

There is an unfortunate quote from Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University and the author of 'Food Politics':

''The governor is on a slippery slope. If he thinks ducks are treated badly, he needs to go visit a slaughterhouse....Are we going to have bootlegged foie gras? Are we going to see celebrity chefs jailed along with Martha Stewart for selling foie gras?''

On the one hand, it is refreshing to see a quote that challenges the idea that modern slaughterhouses are places where animals die painlessly. On the other, the horror of the slaughterhouse is relatively short-lived (though those of us who choose a vegetarian diet feel there is no good reason, in wealthy industrialized countries, for making any sentient being experience it) whereas foie gras ducks are tortured for two weeks leading up to their deaths. One does not have to be vegetarian or vegan to oppose either the common horror of factory farming and the egregious cruelty of foie gras.

A quote from Paula Wolfert, the author of the classic cookbook 'The Cooking of Southern France,' makes a little more sense. She says, "These Hollywood people need a trip to the Dordogne. I'd rather be a force-fed duck than a Tyson chicken.''

There is a nice quote from Dr. Elliot M. Katz, the president and founder of In Defense of Animals:

''If we pat ducks on the head and give them a hug before we stick the tube down their throat, it is still inhumane. Right now people go to high-class restaurants because they want a special evening. Hopefully they will lose their appetites when forced to look at the pain and suffering of dead birds.''

"The California law fits into a growing international consensus concerning force-feeding for foie gras, which Israel, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Austria, Germany and other countries have passed laws to ban. It also reflects a broad movement, which has been gaining steam in the United States, to more humane approaches to animal husbandry."

Paul Waldau, director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University is quoted:

''A certain segment of the population is beginning to consume with conscience. Like the Europeans, Americans are beginning to challenge extremely inhumane food production systems.''

And the article discusses a new certification program for "humane food producers." 16 producers have earned the label so far. No doubt the animals on their farms live better than on common factory farms, so it is a welcome development, but I would hate readers to forget that the animals end up in the same under-regulated slaughterhouses. Perhaps our letters can remind them.

The article provides a superb opportunity for letters to the editor against factory farming and/or in favor of plant-based diets. You can read the full article on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/dining/06FOIE.html

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

Matthew Scully, the gifted writer who gave us the beautiful book, "Dominion: The Power of Man, The Suffering of the Animals, and the Call to Mercy" and who worked until recently as a senior speechwriter for President Bush, has an op-ed in the Monday, October 4, Dallas Morning News, headed, "Factory farm meat not on menu for Feast of St. Francis." It is (not surprisingly) wonderful. He sinks his sharp teeth into gourmands who make light of animal advocacy. I will paste the piece below, and you can find it on line at:

It provides a great opportunity for supportive letters to the editor, against factory farming and in perhaps in favor of plant-based diets.

(Note: As I am still traveling, I do not have my usual resources. Though I think 'Viewpoints,' where the piece appears, is a feature of the print edition of the Dallas Morning News, I am not 100% sure that this was not a web piece only; I have not been able to check with Scully before sending. But, either way, it was well worth reading, and deserves those supportive letters to the editor.)

In the week leading up to today's Feast of St. Francis, it fell to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide whether the sale and production of foie gras should be terminated in California on the grounds of cruelty to animals. At first, the governor called the proposal another "silly" example of a legislature with too much time on its hands. But then Wednesday he signed the bill into law, apparently finding that the cruelty questions are not so easily shrugged off.

Following the usual pattern of these debates, advocates gave us the harrowing details of how the product is made – by repeatedly shoving a pipe down the throat of a duck or goose, until the creature's liver has swelled to 10 or 12 times its natural size.

Opponents, meanwhile, expressed indignation at being lectured to about their habits and favorite fare. David Shaw, food critic for the Los Angeles Times, called the whole business a "ridiculous excursion into political correctness," adding: "I'm not ready – never will be ready – to give up steaks, lamb chops, roast chicken, veal chops or anything else just because a bunch of fanatics want to suck on celery sticks and make goo-goo eyes over farm animals."

I'm always struck by this attitude, as if one should be able to have foie gras, veal, "or anything else" without being burdened with the knowledge of how it was obtained. Foie gras and veal are both, by definition, the product of sick, maltreated animals.

However one cares to react to this datum, it is not fanatical or ill mannered to point it out, but a frank acknowledgment of the moral costs. Nor is it clear, in Mr. Shaw's case, that a man rising in angry defense of a table treat has any business telling other people to get serious.

To his credit, however, at least this food critic makes no pretense of any loftier motive than having his favorite delicacy. For those who profess a higher code, it is a different matter.

Christians in particular, as they honor the example of St. Francis today, would do well to examine some of their own attitudes about the treatment of farm animals.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, leader of the Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked recently to weigh in on these very questions. Animals, he told German journalist Peter Seewald, must be respected as our "companions in creation."

While it is licit to use them for food, "we cannot just do whatever we want with them. ... Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible."

Sometimes the most radical thing is to be confronted by one's own standards, and if the cardinal is correct here, then we've got some real problems. Across America and the world, millions of our companions in creation are locked away in industrial "mass-confinement" farms, never feeling soil or sunshine. If they ever see pasture land, it is only from trucks hauling them to industrial abattoirs that kill at a hellish pace of thousands per hour.

On hog farms like the Smithfield facilities I toured a few years ago in North Carolina, even the littlest mercies – a bit of maternal care, room to roam outdoors, straw to lie on – have long since been taken away as needless and costly luxuries.

News reports following each new "mad-cow" scare – of calves fed a swill of blood and excrement, of downed animals unable even to walk to their death – give the merest glimpse of all the moral shortcuts and man-made miseries of the factory farm. Moral concern has surrendered entirely to economic calculation, leaving no limit to the hurt and privation that "growers" are willing to inflict upon animals to keep costs down and profits up.

And far from "making goo-goo eyes" at farm animals, as Mr. Shaw puts it, we don't think of them at all. Or else we readily accept the pious-sounding justifications invoked by factory farmers to cover their cruelties – a little cheap grace to go with their cheap meat.

Critics like Mr. Shaw want us to take a hard, unsentimental view of animals. They never seem to take a hard, unsentimental look at themselves and the demands they place upon the humble animals. Hence this sniveling about the loss of a frivolous little meal starter, as if his pleasure is everything and their suffering nothing.

Religious people answer to a different standard, however, as we were reminded in this weekend's blessing of the animals. It was said of St. Francis that "he walked the earth like the pardon of God." What would this man make of our factory farms, and what Christian in his presence would dare defend them?

Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter to President Bush and the author of "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals," can be reached at www.matthewscully.com