In What Way Is This Educational?

Every time I research Horrifying Thing A, I discover Horrifying Things B and C.

This afternoon I visited Horrifying Thing A: “Bodies Revealed“, which succeeds even less at convincing me that it is an entirely education-driven venture than did Gunther von Hagens’ “Body Worlds“, the original exhibition, which I saw years ago in Chicago.  Alas, I am not at this moment equipped to compare them (beyond saying that “Bodies Revealed” is but a sad, faint reflection of “Body Worlds”) or to comment on whether they are “educational” or “exploitative” (probably both, although “Body Worlds” has an edge on being, at some level, actual education).  I am an artist as well as a former worker with large carnivores; I am no stranger to dead things.  The anatomy, as well as the relation to art, fascinates me.  The topic which requires further consideration for me is a more moral angle: what is this exhibition for?  Why should I be giving it money (or not)?  How does it relate to other uses of dead things I have previously encountered, either thought-provoking, ridiculous or theoretically useful?  Why do human carcasses demand a more reverential attitude than do animal carcasses?

While looking around on the “Body Worlds” site for more information about the plastinates, trying to figure out what I did think about it all, I discovered Horrifying Thing B: von Hagens has an online store, in which “qualified users” can purchase actual plastinated human parts (as well as “formalin fixed specimens“).  Little wonder there is no photo available for the “wet whole body specimen, male, covered with skin”.  Okay, I can see how university anatomy departments might be really excited about the opportunity to get one of these, and I certainly support their use in education, but maybe they don’t need a publicly accessible web store.  More stuff for my brain to process (“Is it art?  Is it wholesale exploitationHow can he sell themWhere does he get all these people?  Is education worth the inevitable collateral of people buying these as coffee table decoration?  Is it okay if the bodies are all willing donors?”) later.

The site also notes that “Body Worlds” has some animal plastinates sprinkled in among the humans (my personal favorite is “Horse and Rider“, which in person embodies the word “awe-inspiring”).  In 2010 the animals got their own exhibition, “Body Worlds of Animals“.  This is, on the whole, all right.  We use dead animals, for better or worse, as educational tools all the time, and I’d rather see a dead animal made useful in some way than tossed in the trash.  However, Horrifying Thing C, today, was the discovery that the “Body Worlds” store is selling jewelry made of delicate, individual slices of plastinated fruit and, er, animal parts:

Those charming red circles are plastinated sagittal sections through a bull penis.  There are, of course, a matching bracelet and earrings.  They seem to have a lot of extra bull penises around the place, don’t they?

While part of me is desperate to get one of these for my mother-in-law, most of me is firmly in the “that ain’t right” camp.  There’s no way this is “educational”, and it’s sort of skirting the edge of being “art”.  I don’t mind animals (and, in many cases, consenting humans) being used for actual education, but I have problems with the gratuitous use of animal parts in art, especially if the animals are slaughtered especially so the art can occur.  I don’t think I need to be buying any of these, even if they are (as is likely) just using slaughter remnants of animals which are being butchered for meat and thoroughly used anyway.  My strongest feeling here, though, is that in no other context would anyone willingly wear goat testicles as fashion accessories.

New Book Available on Wolf Hybrids

The bulk of my animal career has been spent working with the socialized, hand-raised wolves of Wolf Park, a wildlife facility in Battle Ground, Indiana.  While working there I met a variety of people who had issues, of one kind or another, with wolf hybrids (also known as wolfdogs, or wolf x dog hybrids).  The problems these people (and their animals) faced inspired me, and a coworker of mine, to write a book, so that people who suddenly find themselves confronted with something labeled a “wolf hybrid” would have somewhere to turn.

The book is now available for purchase.  It can be purchased through Wolf Park, if you’d like to support a nonprofit animal facility.  It can be purchased through the publisher, Dogwise Publishing, if you’d like to support an excellent publishing house with an emphasis on dogs, training, and canine behavior in general.  It can also be purchased through Amazon if you would like to take a look inside the book before purchasing it.

It was our goal, in writing this book, to make the world a little better for critters that got inadvertently mixed up in the “wolf hybrid” controversy — whether they be wolves, dogs, wolf hybrids, or the people who meet them.  If you are a shelter worker, a rescuer, a veterinarian, an animal control officer — or just someone who loves dogs and the things that dogs do — please consider picking up a copy.  The more people know about these wonderful animals, the better.

Can’t Spell “Slaughter” Without Doublespeak

Even though it happens all the time, people hate talking about killing animals.  One of their favorite ways of avoiding the topic is to use euphemisms.  Rather than “killing” animals at the slaughterhouse, they “stun” them; rather than “dismembering” them they “render” or “process” them; and animals do not get crippled or maimed in transit to the slaughterhouse — instead they are “downed” — ad nauseam.

With this in mind: a quiet little law has recently been passed which makes it possible for the US to resume horse slaughter operations.  This sounds gruesome but it might be considered to be of net benefit to the horses.  Horse slaughter was originally banned in the US in order to reduce the number of horses slaughtered for meat, but the same number of horses still got slaughtered after the ban — they just got shipped to Mexico or Canada first.  The only effect of the slaughter ban was to add a horrific multi-day transit in un-air-conditioned cattle trucks to the horses’ experience.  So, we still need to do some work to solve the issue of horses in the slaughterhouse — but, in the meantime, at least we removed that awful transit experience.  Progress.

The Arabian Professional and Amateur Horseman’s Association wanted to show support for the Arabian Horse Association, which came out in favor of this law — but how to show its support without appearing to say, “Oh, good, we’re killing horses again”?  The APAHA decided to use a tragically awful euphemism:

The Arabian Professional and Amateur Horsemen’s Association voted, with unanimous approval, to thank the AHA Board for continuing your support for the re-opening of the equine terminal marketplace, and to join with the AHA in support of the reinstatement of equine processing in the United States.

George Carlin is rolling over in his grave.  The re-opening of the equine terminal marketplaceEquine terminal marketplace!  What on earth is the equine terminal marketplace?  They’re not going to slaughter — they’re going shopping!

Whether you support the rescinding of the ban or not — aren’t we all mature enough to admit, out loud, that humans kill animals for meat?  How are we supposed to solve the problem if we can’t even admit that it exists?  What was wrong with “We are happy that steps are being taken to reduce the suffering of horses bound for slaughter”?  Honestly, they could have just gone with the last paragraph of the original statement:

There are issues to address, certainly, and many different options available to improve the terminal marketplace, among them mobile slaughter units and live web monitoring of plants. As horsemen, breeders, and horse lovers, we are the ones responsible for dealing with these issues, making sure that the terminal marketplace becomes ever more humane, with a quick and dignified passing, without undue stress, and where the horse can go on to be useful to man after his demise, just as he has been for the last 5000 years.

Baby Steps

from mgessford, via Flickr Creative Commons

I am an animal trainer at heart, and I understand that rewarding companies (with my money) for “baby steps” — tiny movements in the directions I consider “right” — will eventually cause them to take larger steps in those “right” directions.  With that in mind, I gravitate towards things labeled “green”, even if those things are only partly green, or even, as I sometimes find, only faintly greenish.

The pen I bought last night might be the most sideways baby step I’ve seen in a bit.  It annoys me, because the big print (of course) says “BIODEGRADABLE PEN!!  SAVE THE EARTH!  ECO-FRIENDLY!!” and then the tiny print, on the back of the carton, indicates that only “most of” the pen (i.e., the actual body of the pen) is biodegradable.  The ink cartridge, the tip, the spring, and the finger cushion are not biodegradable and go in the trash.  In addition, the “biodegradable” parts of the pen are only biodegradable under certain circumstances.  They will not biodegrade in a landfill — you have to take the pen apart, take the biodegradable bits out and bury them in your yard.

In their defense, the pen company does say on the carton that the pen isn’t all biodegradable.  They even have friendly animations on their web site demonstrating how to disassemble the pen and make sure that the bits which can biodegrade are disposed of appropriately.  (And, of course, if I were really eco-friendly myself, I would have a compost bin to put the pen parts in.  Glass houses, etc.)  In any event, I did actually buy the pen, because it is a baby step in the right direction.  If enough people vote with their wallets, perhaps the company’s next “green” pen will be 70% biodegradable, and their next will be 85% biodegradable.

The whole mess just reminded me of having to look on the back of every product, follow every asterisk, and make sure that “cage free” means “living on grass pasture” and not “packed shoulder to shoulder in an open plan barn”, and that “natural flavors” is not a euphemism for “crushed beetles“.  Sometimes it’s really hard to be earth- and animal-friendly, but, well, we’re all taking baby steps.

Dog Joins the Monkeysphere

This is just another instance wherein an animal which comes to community attention as an individual (rather than as an anonymous member of a group) suddenly joins the Monkeysphere and becomes worthy of a social bond.

Nobody wanted to adopt an anonymous beagle when he was one of hundreds of unwanted dogs and cats at a shelter in Alabama.  “Hundreds of unwanted dogs and cats” is a huge, vague concept, and it’s hard to form a social bond with, or feel one is personally able to help, “hundreds of unwanted dogs and cats”.  However, once he was brought to national consciousness as an individual dog with a name, people fought over the right to adopt him and a home was almost immediately found.

This is, by the way, why savvy shelters post individual web pages for each animal, with a little story about each, and a name for everybody.  It’s hard to open your heart to “181406M”, but it’s easy to find a soft spot for “Daniel”.

(Daniel, by the way, now has his own blog, and is working to abolish the use of gas chambers for euthanasia of pets in Pennsylvania via Daniel’s Law.  See what you can do when you have a name?)

One Step Forward, One Step Back: Gassing Chickens

via Cheetah100, Flickr Creative Commons

As described in many, many, many books and videos (but especially accessibly by this book, in case you’re interested), large slaughterhouses can process so many animals per hour that workers on the assembly line can have to deal with as many as one animal every five seconds (depending on species).  This causes “sloppy workmanship” on the part of the workers, manifesting itself in animals “stunned” badly or not at all, injuries to animals and workers as conscious animals are “stuck”, “legged”, or dunked in tanks of scalding water…um, anyway, high speeds in large slaughterhouses are bad, primarily because handling so many animals, so quickly, makes it possible for humane killing methods to “miss”, and for animals to go through the butchering process not only alive, but conscious.

There seems to be a movement afoot that at first looks like a great idea: some factories here and there have picked up on the idea of “sedating”/”stunning”/”gassing” the animals with carbon dioxide to make sure they are unconscious before being killed.  On the one hand, this is a great step forward.  A slaughterhouse is actually considering the needs of the animals it is processing and trying to make the experience less stressful for them.  Yes, the slaughterhouse will benefit from this: the birds will be less damaged on packaging (less wasted meat) and of course they will be able to put “humanely slaughtered” on all their packaging, so it’s not as though it’s all altruistic, but still: baby steps.

On the other hand — speaking as someone who has personally “euthanized” hundreds of mice via carbon dioxide and seen others do so — this is not a foolproof answer.  CO2 euthanasia is only a quiet, peaceful death if it is performed very slowly, very carefully, on one animal at a time.  (Even that’s debatable — there’s still a happy section of science cheerfully turning out papers on whether or not CO2 euthanasia is “euthanasia” at all.)  I strongly suspect that the fast-paced world of the high-volume slaughterhouse is not going to combine well with the slow and careful process of humane CO2 euthanasia.  Captive-bolt stunning, which is already used by the factories, is, in itself, a humane procedure.  However, the speed at which a large slaughterhouse operates renders captive-bolt stunning inhumane because proper procedures are unable to be followed and the animals are not properly stunned.  I think the same issues will affect CO2 euthanasia if it is used in high-volume slaughterhouse operations.

First, the size of the operation itself is going to induce pressure to make the process of filling the gas chamber, which should be a carefully monitored, slow procedure, a quick-and-dirty one.  The chicken factory mentioned in the link above, at least, appears to be talking about processing hundreds of birds at a time — according to the article, the containers in which the birds are shipped to the plant will go into a huge CO2 chamber, which will need to be room sized at least.  How to fill such a room?  Recommendations vary, but the average is something like 10% of room air replaced with CO2 per minute — that’s at least ten minutes to fill the chamber with gas.  (There are arguments for and against pre-filling the chamber with gas, or using faster filling speeds, but that discussion must be saved for a different article.)  The chamber will then need to be cleared of gas before workers enter and remove the birds (or the workers will need breathing apparatus).  This is all going to take time, which high-speed workers do not have.

Second, the size of the room is going to affect the facility’s ability to deliver gas properly to every animal.  Birds further from the gas vents will be affected at different rates than birds next to the vents.  Also, since CO2 is heavier than air, the birds at the top of the room will be affected differently than birds at the bottom.  What will assure that every animal: a) is rendered completely unconscious, b) remains unconscious for butchering?  In a room of sufficient size it is possible for the outermost birds at the bottom of the room to be dead while the birds in the center on the top are still conscious.  If workers are filling and emptying the room at high speeds, this problem is actually quite likely.  (There are already documented reports of dogs surviving similar gas chambers at humane shelters.)

Third, many laboratory euthanasia standards recommend euthanizing animals by CO2 one at a time (or in small familiar groups in their home cages).  (However, it should be noted that the official AVMA line on this is that the gas “chambers should not be overcrowded”, and indeed, some facilities routinely toss a bunch of animals all into one cage for euthanasia to save time.)  This is because animals can detect the intrusion of CO2.  They often become alarmed and disoriented before they go down, running, kicking, squealing, and generally acting agitated.  This does not promote quiet, calm, peaceful behavior — this promotes a room full of shrieking, flapping, alarmed and disoriented birds.

Apparently they’ve been trying CO2 euthanasia on pigs tooThis article suggests that all the agitation takes place after loss of consciousness and that the pigs are completely out cold while “convulsions, vocalization, reflex struggling, breath holding, and tachypnea” occur.  I’ll admit I’ve never seen a pig euthanized by CO2, but I must say I have some reservations about how “unconscious” the mice and rats I euthanized were while they underwent “Guedel’s second stage of anesthesia“.

I applaud these factories for trying to make the treatment of the animals with whom they are working more humane.  (I am an animal trainer at heart, and I know to reward “baby steps”, no matter how small.)  However, I believe these factories are not treating the correct problem (which is generally that the facility is trying to process too many animals for its capacity, and using pressured, underpaid, and under-trained workers).

Dinners, Dinners Everywhere — Why Can’t I Eat Them?

In my job I have a very small period allotted for lunch, no real ability to leave the office to buy food, and the usual dubious and communal utensils with which to cook anything I choose to bring.  Prefabricated, fast-food or otherwise “convenient” meals strongly appeal to me: quick to cook, taking no brainpower to prepare, and highly portable.  They are also great for portion control — my current diet is big on counting calories and I love little packages which have done all the dirty work for me and don’t tempt me to overeat.

It is a terrible shame that I can’t eat them.

I am avoiding, for hundreds of extremely good reasons that I’m trying to tackle one at a time, factory-farmed meat.  Some of the biggest consumers of factory-farmed meat are the people who are producing these helpful little meals: using the cheapest possible ingredients (including meat) is how they make these meals affordable.  It’s pretty much impossible to find anything cheap and/or convenient which is not made out of factory farmed meat, eggs, or dairy.

The irony is, of course, that meat is generally more expensive than vegetables.  The producers could make their meals even cheaper, and possibly even better for you, by substituting meat with beans or another source of protein in at least some of their dinners.  Instead, they produce dish after dish with meat thrown in.  Going along the freezer case is another exciting revisit to the Monty Python “spam” sketch: pasta with chicken, pasta with beef, pasta with pork; vegetables with chicken; vegetables with beef, vegetables with pork; potatoes with chicken, potatoes with beef, potatoes with pork…spam spam spam spam spam…

The meat in the meals even appears generally in only tiny amounts, almost as an afterthought.  Check out this (fascinating) site which reviews frozen meals — notice it takes scrolling back quite a long way to find a single vegetarian entree — and take note of how much meat there is in each meal.  Wouldn’t it be cheaper and better for everyone to, occasionally, just take the meat out, bill the thing as a vegetable/pasta dish and be done with it?

Badly Aimed Spam

This blog just received a spam comment (in German) from a site called “High Protein Recipes”.   I probably shouldn’t reward them for that behavior by mentioning their name, but I’m finding it pretty hard to imagine a less well-aimed piece of advertising.

It’s probably all my mentions of meat (and spam)….

Killing a Tree for Christmas is a Good Idea?

Christmas treeThis is one of those weird places where my immediate reaction — why do I need to rip a perfectly good tree out of the ground to celebrate a national holiday — is not necessarily the one with which I end up after doing further research.

Every year around this time, I am saddened by the appearance of tree yards, full of perfectly healthy little trees that have been cut down so they can spend a month in someone’s living room and then be tossed out with the trash.  Now, I am aware that trees do not feel pain, and it can’t be argued that tree farms are cruel to the trees — it just seems like a waste to me.  When I began doing research on the subject I was prepared to find environmental groups going bonkers about how the tree farms take up animal habitat, cover the world in pesticides, and produce x percent of “waste” trees which clog up landfills.  And, indeed, I found those articles, or at least the ones about pesticides.  Tree farms actually provide animal habitat, and “waste” trees (as well as “used” trees after the holidays) are taken care of via “treecycling” programs, which appear to recycle about 94% of all trees used in the US.  Impressive!

Instead of a lot of vitriol about tearing down forests and destroying the environment for holiday ornaments, I found this interesting little article from National Geographic explaining why living trees overall use a smaller carbon/water footprint, are biodegradable and can be used to create mulch and/or animal habitat, are not made of non-renewable petroleum products like artificial trees, and how the living tree farms support 100,000 American workers.  This article from the New York Times also points out that the tree farms produce oxygen while they grow, provide animal habitat, and help fix carbon in the soil.  They also provide an alternative crop for farms having difficulty raising other crops on their land.  Both seem to be referring to this 2009 study by Ellipsos, an environmental consulting firm in Montreal, Canada, which concluded that, unless the fake tree was re-used for more than ten years, the real tree was generally the better environmental choice.

Overall, the worst option seems to be the imported (i.e., the cheap) artificial tree, which is made with non-renewable petroleum byproducts in factories that burn fossil fuels for power, and can be contaminated with lead.  The best, or at least the most eco-friendly, option appears to be either to decorate a tree which is already living in your front yard or to purchase a “balled” or potted living tree which can be replanted after the holiday (now there’s a great idea for a tradition).  In the middle, the real tree seems to have edged out the fake, despite my immediate reaction of Why should I kill a tree for this holiday?

Hmm!  Live and learn!

Animal Capable of Human Speech is Remembered for Smoking Cigarettes

Various news sources are telling me that a “cigarette-smoking chimpanzee” passed away on Saturday, December 10.  The name of the chimp in question is Booee (or Booie), and this immediately pinged my memory: was that not the name of a signing chimp — one of the chimps that researcher Roger Fouts communicated with while he was raising Washoe, arguably the most famous of the signing chimps?

Image from Wildlife Waystation Facebook

I wasn’t hallucinating.  Here’s a link to a heart-rending little scene from the book Next of Kin, where Fouts describes meeting Booee again after many years apart.  And that’s the same Booee, a lifelong lab animal, unwilling participant in probably several dozen experiments until being briefly featured on a television show made him less than political to keep.  He was moved to the Wildlife Waystation in California in October, 1995.

This particular chimpanzee could speak to humans.  He used sign language to do so, but he could do so — one of the first of a tiny wave of “animals” which could speak a human language.  He was part of the community that helped open the door between humans and their closest cousins, the great apes, and helped to start the (still ongoing) movement which is trying to get chimpanzees out of the laboratory.  He is part of the snowball that started the avalanche of things like the Great Ape Protection Act, which would have been unthinkable when Booee was born.  This guy is one of the founders of a little, slow, quiet revolution in the way humans think about animals.

And something like 90% of his obituaries say “he was on television once”, “he smoked cigarettes”, and “he begged for candy”.  Why are those chosen as his defining attributes?  Are they just the only ones the news outlets think we’ll understand?  Booee is a historical figure.  He did a lot for animal/human understanding and the promotion of the idea that animals are not just automatons with fur.  It might be hard to encapsulate the meaning of what he was, what he did and the way he changed the world into a blog-sized sound bite, but “cigarette-smoking chimpanzee”?  Is that all we can come up with?

I know that the news media are just trying to garner readers, and that “cigarette smoking chimpanzee” probably: a) resonates better for most people than does “signing chimpanzee” and b) is “cuter” and more “sound bite friendly”.  But please — is that the only thing you can think of to say?  (Here’s the Wildlife Waystation obituary for Booee, in case you’d like to see how to do it with class.)