For this year’s criFSMas cards, we decided to go with a “pasta and peace” theme. (We aim to put the PASTA back in PASTAfarian here at the Garbato-Brady house, yo! That, and my “domestic terrorist” idea didn’t quite pan out.) Because he’s had a rough year, Ralphie was the obvious choice of cover model. Not to mention, one eye? Totally fits with the pirate side of flying spaghetti monsterism. As per usual, I couldn’t resist creating “outtakes” for each of the dogs. They’re all just so freaking cute, you know? (Rhetorical question; you best say yes!)

The “official” 2010 Garbato-Brady criFSMas card.
- Ralphie -
Wishing you peace & pasta this holiday season!
——————————

Because years spent on the internets have forever ruined my penmanship,
I design and print message labels to affix to the back of each card.
This year’s greeting reads:
Happy Holidays! With love (& lasagna),
The Garbato-Bradys:
Kelly, Shane, Peedee, O-Ren, Kaylee, Jayne, Ozzy & Ralphie
“you’ll shoot your eye out, kid,” the one-eyed cover dog
——————————

Outtakes!
- Peedee -
May your plate overflow with compassion & campanelle.
——————————

- O-Ren -
May love & lasagna warm your belly on a cold winter’s night.
——————————

- Kaylee -
May your heart be filled with joy & gemelli, today and always.
——————————

- Jayne -
May you find friendship & fusilli this criFSMas season!
——————————

Whatever you celebrate, season’s greetings and wishes of peace from all of us to you and yours!

I’ll leave you with this Christmas Manger / Vegan Silent Night video from Bea Elliott. While I’m not exactly a religious person (in the understatement of the year), I find it a bittersweet description of the conflicting feelings I – and many vegans, no doubt – oftentimes experience around the holiday season.

Peace to all; and to all, a good life.

(Crossposted from.)

Kaylee & Jayne, x-mas 2006

So. When last we talked of my furkids, I told you how my husband and I came to adopt Ralphie, Peedee and O-Ren – none of whom were considered “less adoptable,” or at least not at the time of their adoption. In fact, I doubt that each dog’s respective rescue group would have had much trouble placing them, had Shane and I not come along. We both recognized this, and felt rather guilty about it. So when we decided to adopt dog number four (and possibly five!), we resolved to find a “special” dog – a senior, someone with medical or behavioral issues, maybe even a bonded pair of dogs.

Our first choice was a pair of teeny lil’ rat terrier sisters, Bella and…I forget the other dog’s name. They were older adults with behavior issues, namely, anxious temperaments and a fear of men. They also needed to be adopted together – strike three. Ultimately, the adoption didn’t pan out; we were never able to meet the girls, in fact, because their fear of men was so great that their foster mom had more or less decided to adopt them herself. When we inquired about them, they’d already spent a few years in their foster home and were still fearful in the foster dad’s presence. I can see why mom gave up any hope of rehoming them, dog bless her heart.

So we hit Petfinder again, specifically in search of a pair of dog-friends who had to be adopted together. Unfortunately, Petfinder’s search parameters don’t easily allow for such a search (or even easy browsing), so when looking for a pair, you really just have to hope that they share a single listing. (Or else be prepared to pour over every single profile!) There really weren’t many bonded pairs of dogs listed at the time; besides Bella and her sister, Kaylee and Jayne were the only smallish dog-friends up for adoption. So, three years ago this September, we went out to Lexington, MO – about an hour’s drive from where we lived – to visit them.

From Kaylee’s Petfinder listing

Kaylee and Jayne originally came to Friends of the Friendless with a third dog, Paige, roughly six months before we met them. The three had been abandoned in a home when the tenants moved out; the landlord found them, several weeks later, starving and in rough shape. Jayne had heartworm, while Kaylee suffered from some serious dental problems, the result of both bad genes and a lifetime’s worth of neglect.

Curiously, Jayne had already been spayed by her previous owners, while Kaylee had not. From the looks of her sagging belly and, shall we say “well used” nipples, Kaylee had obviously birthed a few litters during her eight years. Jayne, in contrast, doesn’t appear to have ever had pups – odd because Jayne is a classically handsome terrier, while Kaylee is…not. (I joke that she’s so ugly, she’s back to being cute, much like a rhinoceros or ground mole. I totally mean that in a nice way, though.)

From Jayne’s Petfinder listing

Paige had since been adopted, while Kaylee and Jayne languished in the shelter/rescue. Supposedly, an older women had committed to adopting them, but died while on a cruise she’d already booked and had to take before she could bring them home. (Shane is convinced that this is the most elaborate cop-out, ever.) So I can only imagine what their foster mom, Gina, thought when we committed to adopting them, but said we’d be unable to bring them home until after we got back from an already-scheduled trip to New York! Unlike their would-be fairy dogmother, Shane and I kept our word; we welcomed Kaylee and Jayne into our home several weeks later, on September 30, 2006.

One of the few photos in which all five dogs appear.

For the most part, everything has worked out beautifully. They each have their “issues,” but that’s precisely why we adopted them!:

* As I mentioned, each has dealt with medical problems. Jayne was just finishing up heartworm treatment when we brought her home; while her bout with heartworm may have shortened her lifespan, Gina her vet able to treat it successfully. Don’t let a heartworm diagnosis deter you from adopting a dog – the treatment can be difficult (especially for the patient), but it is a treatable disease.

At least she has a sense of humor about it.

Kaylee, on the other paw, has had ongoing dental issues. She’s been under for dental surgery at least twice, in order to have ten or so teeth removed. Friends of the Friendless also spent a small fortune in dental work prior to the adoption. I know it can be a chore, but it’s important to brush your dog-kid’s teeth every day. (Cats, too, though I’m hardly one to lecture – Ozzy won’t let us anywhere near his mouth!)

* Both girls are terrified of rain, thunder and loud noises – much more so than Ralphie, Peedee and O-Ren combined. A heavy rainfall is enough to send them each to their respective hiding places: Jayne, under the bed, and Kaylee, in the bathroom or closet. The July 4th fireworks display is like Armageddon to them. We’re fairly certain that they were kept outdoors, irregardless of the weather, which would explain their sometimes irrational fears.

Jayne is afraid of the camera, too; each flash is like a stab to the heart!

* Jayne is especially nervous and aloof, probably owing to poor (or no!) early socialization. While she was mostly afraid of human contact in those early days, she’s gradually gotten used to our affections. When you pet her, she freezes up, as if terrified; but pull away, and she looks at once puzzled and annoyed: Why’dya stop!?

She spends much of her time alone, near but not in the action: when everyone’s in the living room, watching tv or eating, she’ll hang out across the hall, in the office; when we’re in the office, she’s in the living room, sleeping on the couch. Even at night, it’s hard to snuggle with her: everyone (save for the cat) sleeps in bed with us, but as always, Jayne stays back, claiming the guest bed as her own. She seems extremely conflicted about humans: are we friends or foes?

I suspect that some of Jayne’s issues might be due to something more insidious than a simple lack of socialization. For instance, the dogs jump at the chance to lick spoons and dishes, especially when covered in peanut butter. While Jayne will happily clean an unattended bowl, she cringes when I offer up a spoon; the larger the utensil, the more pained her expression. I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that her previous owner used to hit her with similar objects. This would also explain her ambivalence in regards to human attention and kindness.

Kaylee spurns my advances.

Luckily, Kayle doesn’t share Jayne’s uncertainty. Though she’s hardly one for hardcore snuggling, Kaylee enjoys giving and receiving affection. A little too much, perhaps: Kaylee and O-Ren are my two little shadows, following me everywhere. And I do mean everywhere, including the bathroom. Kaylee’s struggles with anxiety are the polar opposite of Jayne’s: she has separation anxiety, and will mark up the house when left alone, particularly if she knows I’m around, but cannot get to me. Thus, we’re rarely apart: while I do yoga in the spare room, she naps in a cage behind me; when I shower, she relaxes in the corner of the bathroom; she’s even at my heels while I vacuum, scaryloudrobot be damned.

Thankfully, Kaylee’s separation anxiety is on the mild side, and can usually be prevented by crating her on the rare occasions when she’s left alone. More often than not, we try to accommodate her, for example, by taking her to the drive-in with us. (Hey, she’s quiet – which is more than I can say about our first three adoptees!)

Jayne & Kaylee

* Shane and I really, really wanted to adopt a bonded pair of dogs who couldn’t live without one another. We gave it our best shot, but even though Friends of the Friendless fought to keep them together, the two mostly seem indifferent towards one another. Perhaps they’ve simply grown apart in the three years they’ve been with us. It’s hard to remember exactly how they regarded one another in those early days.

The rescue group thought that Kaylee and Jayne might be mother and daughter, but I don’t see the resemblance; both are mostly white terriers, and that’s about it. Short of doing a DNA test, though, we’ll never know. Personally, I think Kaylee and O-Ren look more like mother and daughter than do Kaylee and Jayne. Both girls have decidedly porcine bodies: Kaylee is the momma sow to Rennie’s piglet.

Kaylee, lovin’ on O-Ren

* Eight years old at the time of adoption, Kaylee was considered a “senior” even then; now going on eleven, she’s practically ancient! She’s also smart, alert and athletic – and more active than her soon-to-be five-year-old daughter Jayne. Don’t write off an adult or senior animal based on age alone – it’s just a number, even for dogs.

To use another example, Ralphie the dachshund will be twelve this October, yet he’s more active, playful and fit than when we adopted him eight years ago. Having plenty of playmates, a large yard, a healthy diet and lots of exercise has kept him young. There’s plenty of life yet in each of our “old people”!

Kaylee can still keep up with Peedee!

Besides, old folks need love, too. There something especially heroic in adopting an animal who’s not long for this world; in loving someone whom you’re destined to lose much, much too soon; or in attempting to redress a life’s worth of neglect, abuse or loneliness in a few short months or weeks.

Even though Kaylee and Jayne faced some barriers to being adopted, I still think they’re on the “easy” end of the spectrum. Reading about Alec and his guardian Nicole, I wonder whether I could ever overcome such difficult obstacles. Anxious peeing? Cat trouble? Rotting teeth? Meh, these vegan cake when compared to sudden paralysis and incontinence! But I imagine that many people find unexpected resolve when faced with tragedy. Of course I’d continue to love and care for Ralphie if his back were to go, or Kaylee if she became incontinent in her old age. What other choice does one have?

Likewise, adopting a “less adoptable” animal can be an especially rewarding experience. You may not initially bring the benefit of a lifetime’s worth of love and bonding to the table when confronting the animal’s “special needs” – but these will develop in time (perhaps a surprisingly short time!). Until then, take comfort in the knowledge that you’ve saved a life – a life that so many others consider not worth saving. Beyond rescue. Undeserving. Unlovable. A throwaway.

But all animals deserve a safe, loving home. Every one.

From their Twitter profile (!);
Counterclockwise: Ralphie, Peedee, O-Ren, Ozzy, Jayne & Kaylee

(Crossposted from.)

———————-

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare holidays observances events adoption pet companion animal animal companion dog canine cat feline special needs senior petfinder my furkids furkids dogkids flickr photos Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable- Pet Day August 12 kaylee jayne rat terrier fox terrier jack russell terrier terrier mutt

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, today is the first (?) annual Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable-Pet Day! Petfinder created the holiday in order to raise awareness about animals who have an extra difficult time finding their forever homes, for a whole host of reasons.

Among cats and dogs, animals who face added obstacles to being rehomed include:

- Seniors and adults;
- Animals with medical issues, including disability and disease;
- Animals with emotional or behavioral issues, such as shyness or a nervous temperament;
- Animals who must be the only nonhuman in the home;
- Bonded animals who must be adopted as a pair – or, worse still, a trio, quartet, etc.;
- Cats with feline leukemia (a transmissible disease);
- Black dogs (for additional information, please see my post at Change.org on Black Dog Syndrome); and
- Dogs who belong to a so-called “dangerous” breed (pit bulls being the “dangerous” breed de jour).

If you plan on adopting an animal companion (or have adopted in the past), congratulations! With this one simple act, you become a hero to two animals – the one you rescued from a pound, shelter, rescue group or sanctuary, and also to the animal for whom you’re freed up a space in said pound, shelter, rescue group or sanctuary. According to the HSUS, between 3 and 4 million cats and dogs are killed (note: not “euthanized”) in U.S. shelters every year. While adopting one or two or even ten animals might seem a drop in the bucket, it makes a world of difference to the animals whose lives you’ve saved by adopting instead on buying.

But, as always, there’s more you can do! In regards to animal adoption, go out of your way to choose a cat or dog who meets the above criteria. Naturally, you may not be able to deal with all of these issues; for example, if you already live with one healthy cat, a FIV+ feline is out of the question. Instead of focusing on what you cannot do, however, concentrate on how you can help animals in need. For example, adopting a black dog doesn’t take any more effort than adopting a multi-colored one.

If your home is already filled to capacity, you can urge friends and family members to adopt – and to consider adopting a “less adoptable” animal, to boot. Or make a donation to any one of the hundreds+ animal rescue organizations across the country (and the globe) – many of which specifically focus on a population of “less adoptable” animals, be they companion, farmed, or “exotic”/wild animals.

Of course, you can also help by spreading the word. Make this Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable-Pet Day a success by linking to Petfinder on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, etc., and by telling the world about your “special” kids!

Speaking of which, part two of my family’s own story is coming up next!

[Pictured above is a very young me, circa 1997 - note the leather purse, ugh! on each count - with two of my family's own "less adoptable" girls:

Shannon the black mutt, one half of a 6-year-old pair of sisters we adopted from the local humane society (her sister, Shana, had already passed when this photo was taken); and

Shadow the pit bull mix, who had been hit by a car and had a crushed leg when we found her.

As with all our kids, they were both pure awesomeness, and I miss them more than words can say.]

(Crossposted from.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare holidays observances events adoption pet companion animal animal companion dog canine cat feline special needs senior petfinder my furkids furkids dogkids flickr photos Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable- Pet Day August 12

I’m usually one to roll my eyes at pseudo-holidays – National Hot Dog Day, anyone?; and, hell, even some of the “real” holidays like Easter and Thanksgiving – but I’m pleasantly surprised to see that Petfinder has designated August 12 Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable-Pet Day:

To help senior, special-needs and other often-overlooked pets find homes, We’ve named August 12 Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable- Pet Day. Visit our special section to:

* Get widgets to help pets find homes
* Find out which pets have it hardest
* Read touching adoption stories
* Learn why “less adoptable” pets rule!

And help us spread the word: Some pets are “less adoptable,” but they’re just as lovable!

Which animals have it hardest, you wonder?

Big black dogs. FIV+ cats. Senior pets. Special-needs pets. To help these and other often-overlooked pets find homes, Petfinder has named August 12 “Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable-Pet Day.”

We asked our shelter and rescue group members: Which pets are the hardest to place?

Here’s what they said:

* 30% senior/older pets
* 15% pets with medical problems
* 13% victims of breed prejudice
* 10% shy pets
* 10% those who need to be the only pet

“Pit Bulls are the No. 1 dog put down in our local shelters. There are too many of them, and there is never enough time to get them all adopted.”

“There’s also a ‘big black cat syndrome’! Hard to believe, but many people are still biased against black cats, especially if they’re big.”

“Once a dog is past 1-2 years old, people flat-out expect it to be housetrained. They consider the dog too old to be trained if they’re not housetrained by 2.”

(Links mine.)

Speciesist language aside (HIM! People expect HIM to be housetrained!), I love the idea of promoting not just adoption, but the adoption of “special needs” animals, who usually fare worse in shelters and rescues alike. (Though, happily, some rescues do specialize in hard-to-place animals, while others provide them permanent sanctuary; Old Dog Haven is a personal favorite!)

My own family is a mix of “normal” and “special needs” animals.

Shane and I adopted our first dog-kid, Ralphie, a little over eight years ago. (His eight-year anniversary was July 14, and I missed it! Instead of a cake, I gave him a bath! I’m an awful mother. But I digress.) He was three at the time, and rather healthy and well-trained for a dachshund (who are known for their stubbornness and back problems). Lela, the DRNA rep who transported him from Ohio to Pennsylvania (Ralphie’s originally from Indiana), even commented wistfully on his pleasant temperament, which seemed all the sweeter next her own dog-kids’ rambunctiousness. (The day we picked Ralphie up, one of their charges had bit Lela’s husband on the lip a few hours previous! At first glance, I thought he had a cleft palate. Bad, it was.)

Our next two dog-kids, Peedee and O-Ren, were both pups at the time of their adoption (at 7 months and 1 year old, respectively). Peedee was kind of a “mistake”: we went to an adoption event to meet a middle-aged shih tzu, but the folks at LL Dog Rescue thrust Peedee onto my lap, and it was love at first lick. I couldn’t resist the lil’ bugger, even though I wanted nothing to do with house training a baby. It was all for the best, though; Peedee was meant as a playmate and friend for the then-fat and lazy Ralphie, and what better exercise than a puppy?

Rennie came a few years later; again, we set out with every intention of adopting an adult dog, but ended up with a pup in need of house training. In our defense, we thought O-Ren was four – that was the estimate Animal Haven gave, at least. Our vet placed her at a year old, tops. Another youngster, but I wouldn’t trade Rennie for the world. (If she looks a little scrappy and snotty in the above photo, it’s because she had caught kennel cough by the time we adopted her – all the more reason I fell for her!)

What’s all this got to do with Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable-Pet Day, you ask? Well, having adopted the “cream of the crop” – young, healthy, well-behaved, (mostly) purebred, small dogs – Shane and I felt rather guilty. Yes, we were doing a good thing by adopting homeless dogs, rather than buying from breeders or “pet” stores (truth be told, purchasing an animal as if she were a television has never so much as crossed my mind, not even in my younger omni days), but we felt like we should be doing more: opening our hearts and our home to dogs in even greater need, dogs who might – through no fault of their own – face extra obstacles, such as health or behavioral issues, advanced age, etc.

And so it was that we adopted dogs number four and five, i.e., Miss Kaylee and Jayne (formerly known as Gracie and Penelope). Between the two of them, they possess three of the five disadvantages listed by respondents to Petfinder’s poll (and several not mentioned at all); actually, they each fit in multiple categories. We were well aware of their “special needs” going in, and it’s precisely for these reasons that we decided to adopt the pair.

The three-year anniversary of their adoption is coming up in September. It’s weird; it feels at once like we’ve had them forever, and like it couldn’t possibly be three years since their adoption. I guess I feel that way about all our kids, though.

Anyhow, I’ll share their story on August 12, to celebrate the occasion – an occasion I hope will take off, so spread the word! Check out Petfinder’s website, grab a widget, blog about your “special needs” friends, and encourage others to do the same. If you can, please consider making a donation to a rescue group that specializes in hard-to-place dogs or cats (or, heck, farmed or “exotic” – read: wild – animals, who are by default “special needs”).

All animals deserve a loving family and a safe home. Every one.

(The top photo was taken on the day we brought Kaylee and Jayne home. They both stunk to high heaven and seriously needed a bath; both were terrified of water. So I climbed into the tub with ‘em, jeans and all – which explains the soaked clothing and frizzy ‘do. They still hate baths and fear the rain, but at least they’ll suffer a ten-minute scrub down in silence.)

(Crossposted from…and, with that, the Topsy Turvy Tomato Tree is finally bumped from the main page! You’re welcome.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare holidays observances events adoption pet companion animal animal companion dog canine cat feline special needs senior petfinder my furkids furkids dogkids flickr photos Adopt-a-Less-Adoptable- Pet Day August 12

If you consume meat, eggs or dairy, this is what you support. The alienation and separation of mothers from their children. The reduction of the female body to a meat- and/or milk-producing machine, wherein babies constitute the “meat,” and the milk meant for them is stolen and sold to humans who have absolutely no need for the stuff. Rape, murder and ecocide.

Parents: how would you feel if someone abused your child in such a cruel manner? If someone tore her from your side, and denied her all but the most basic of maternal comforts?

Women: have you really no sympathy for your animal sisters, singled out for especially brutal abuse and exploitation – all because they’re capable of giving rise to new life? Some miracle.

100 million pigs. 100 million mothers, daughters and sons. 100 million reasons to go vegan.

Photos via Animal Rights Advocates Inc.

(Crossposted from.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare meat food pork factory farming intersections parallel oppressions animals and women Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson the pig who sang to the moon pig sow piglet ethology animal behavior flickr photos farm sanctuary books farmed animals

While I’m rather ambivalent when it comes to PETA’s nude “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” “Turn Your Back on Fur,” (and similar) campaigns, I quite like anti-fur ads which depict fur as the bloody, murderous mess that it is. (In theory, anyway…hence the forthcoming caveats.)

For example, this recent series from IndyAct:

Each ad features a thin, white, conventionally attractive, stylishly dressed woman, decked out in a fur coat which once belonged to various animals. The knife-wielding women are covered in blood spatters – bright red blood, everywhere. The woman in the first ad is, inexplicably, rubbing the knife along her chin, as if in contemplation of fellatio (?). Needless to say, I prefer the other two ads in the series.

The text on each photo is different, depending on what type of fur the woman’s wearing.

Top to bottom:

A rare SNOW LEOPARD cat:
Outer: 5 back skin pieces stitched
with 7 neck skin pieces for maximum comfort.
Inner: 13 chest skin pieces for silk-soft feel.
Bring out the real you, for
JUST 9,999 pounds

A lavish RED FOX coat:
Outer: 31 small black skin pieces to give you a constant color.
Inner: 11 chest skin pieces for maximum softness.
Reveal your inner self, for
JUST 5,999 pounds

A beautiful sleeveless BOBCAT coat:
Made of 16 – carefully chosen – quality
black skin pieces.
Bring out the wild side of you, for
JUST 7,999 pounds.

The slogan on each ad reads: “Stop the Carnage; Support our endangered species campaign.”

PETA has produced similar ads, such as their “Here’s the Rest of Your Fur Coat!” series featuring Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Shirley Manson, Persia White and Christine Dolce, as well as “fur trim” ads with the likes of Simple Plan.

Interestingly, the “Here’s the Rest of Your Fur Coat!” ads with Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Shirley Manson and Persia White are notably bloodless – even though the celebs are are holding up skinned animal corpses (i.e., the rest of your fur coat). Christine Dolce and a Simple Plan’s ads are more fitting, as they appear covered in blood.

Also interestingly, PETA’s “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” “Turn Your Back on Fur” (and similar) nude anti-fur ads outnumber their “Here’s the Rest of Your Fur Coat!” ads by a huge margin. Could it have anything to do with the T&A, I wonder? But I digress.

The thing I like about these anti-fur ads is that they’re arresting and controversial – without resorting to gratuitous-yet-predictable displays of T&A. Instead of putting a woman’s naked body front and center, these ads focus on the bloody, murderous business of making a fur coat (or a similar product). Whether the ad’s models are drenched in blood or brandishing the skinned corpses of previously living creatures (or both), the audience’s attention is drawn to the victims of this (should-be) crime, the fur-bearing animals – or rather, what’s left of them, now that the furriers and fashionistas/os have had their way. The viewer’s gaze is where it should be – on the blood and guts and corpses – instead of lingering on a woman’s body parts.

Additionally, this ad concept offers the potential to “sell” the anti-fur message without objectifying women or otherwise displaying their naked bodies. I say “potential” because the woman celebs and models are still glammed up a bit; Christine Dolce, for example, displays ample amounts of cleavage, while her chest is covered in blood. This, too, points to a possible pitfall of the “fur is murder” ad concept: imposing murderous imagery on a sexualized woman runs the risk of conflating violence with sex, and making violence against women seem sexy. And, um, today’s advertisers certainly don’t need any encouragement in that arena.

That said, anti-fur ads such as those above still irk me. As with the cruelty-free cosmetic campaigns I discussed earlier this year, anti-fur ads (whether produced by PETA or another animal advocacy organization) tend to target women to the exclusion of men, thus reinforcing the gendered stereotype that only women care about frivolous, superficial and vapid matters like fashion and makeup. News flash: men wear fur and fur trim (and leather and wool and silk…), too! Yet, looking at these ads, you’re likely to come away with the impression that only women are cruelly narcissistic enough to kill fuzzy wuzzies in the name of fashion. Cruella de Vil, anyone?

Granted, full-length fur coats are more likely to be found in a woman’s closet than a man’s. Excessive and ostentatious furs – when draped on an American male body – can even be the butt of a joke; cue images of David Puddy and his “man-fur.” Even so, many men do wear fur – just in a different fashion than women. Men should, at the very least, comprise a strong minority of the models featured in (and audience targeted by) anti-fur ads.

Yet, with the exception of PETA’s “Ink, Not Mink” series, men very rarely make an appearance in anti-fur ads. “Ink, Not Mink” strikes me as a weird slogan, anyhow, as tattoos and clothing aren’t really comparable products. While each can function as means of self-expression, fur coats (no matter how odious) also serve a more functional purpose, that is, to keep you warm in cold climates. In fact, this is often an excuse used by fur apologists (who among us haven’t heard the red herring “But Eskimos neeeeed to wear fur!!!!1!!!1″?). A tattoo isn’t a substitute for a coat, fur or otherwise. The whole series seems like a reach – a transparent attempt at coolness by finding any and every reason to highlight naked celebrities and their ink. Either way, though, the “Ink, Not Mink” series represents a small portion of PETA’s anti-fur advertising; most features and targets women, and naked ones at that.

So what are the practical consequences of such gendered advertising? By implying that women and women alone are concerned with such fluffy, silly things as fashion, animal advocacy organizations (and others) disempower women – including the very women who constitute the majority of their activist force. Through the selective use of women models, such ads reinforce gender stereotypes which hold that women are vain, shallow, inane, “girly,” overly concerned with appearance, and wasteful (inasmuch as they spend obscene amounts of money on extravagant baubles). If you believe these ads, women are more concerned with appearances than with more important matters….such as politics and ethics. Likewise, men are assumed to be free of such vices, owing to their near-absence in such ads. All of this serves to objectify women – to tell them that how they look is more important than who they are. Add PETA’s gratuitous – and sometimes pornified – nudity to the mix, and the result is toxic.

These hundred or so ads might not seem like a big deal – but when considered in context, they’re yet another small part of a very large and harmful pattern. We live in a culture steeped in misogyny; certainly, there’s no need for animal advocacy organizations to pile on women as well.

———————

* I actually started this post in early February, hence the lengthy gap between the two posts. I got sick and then sidetracked, and yada yada yada. You know how it goes.

(Crossposted from.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peta people for the ethical treatment of animals marketing psa advertising fur anti-fur fur trim fur free faux fur wildlife conservation environment fashion feminism misogyny sexism women and animals intersections parallel oppressions IndyAct violence photos photo blogging flickr

Masson structured the book so that each chapter covers a different species of farmed animals: pigs, chickens, sheep, goats, cows and ducks, in that order. He juxtaposes information about the animals’ emotional lives – thoughts, feelings, sentience, capacity for joy and sorrow, etc. – with the brutal reality for the vast majority of these “owned” animals. Treated like milk and meat machines, dehumanized and objectified, their individuality obscured and their needs ignored, farmed animals suffer the worst of humanity’s whims and wants.

Though I’m only about a third of the way in, a theme which keeps resurfacing is the extra-special abuses (the collective) we mete out to the female members of the species. With brutal precision, farmers routinely turn the reproductive systems of female animals against them, finding newer and more callous ways in which to exploit them as science and technology allow. This isn’t to suggest that males don’t suffer as well – they do. But their suffering isn’t as prolonged or extensive as that of their female counterparts; veal calves, for example, are tortured for sixteen weeks and then, “mercifully,” (relatively speaking) slaughtered. Their sisters, meanwhile, are exploited as baby and milk machines for three to four years, after which they become ground beef. First, their babies and their babies’ food is stolen from them; and, finally, their lives are snatched away as well.

By the mere fact of their sex, sows, hens, ewes, does, nannies, cows and heifers – not to mention mares, bitches, jennies, jills, etc. – are ripe for especially brutal and prolonged exploitation. Oftentimes, this involves a constant cycle of pregnancy, birth, nursing and baby-napping, culminating with the female’s own death when she’s no longer able to breed or “produce” to her “owner’s” satisfaction.

Certainly, we recognize that the theft of a mother’s child is an atrocity when the victims are human mothers and children. At the same time, we argue that non-human animals deserve no rights because they are mere brutes, “lesser” beings, ruled by instinct and instinct alone. Yet, what is the drive to reproduce and parent if not an evolutionary instinct? And if we follow the popular line of reasoning – i.e., animals are creatures of instinct – does it not stand to reason that the maternal instinct is especially powerful in non-human animals?

100 million pigs are birthed, raised and slaughtered for “pork” annually – just in the United States. 100 million piglets are stolen from their mothers. Mothers who, without a doubt, grieve for their disappeared babies. These poor mothers are forced to relive the trauma over and over, as each new litter is stolen from them. This is what I mean when I say that a female’s – a mother’s – suffering must surely be the most painful to bear.

The theme of maternal exploitation in The Pig Who Sang to the Moon is one I’ll return to. For now, allow me to excerpt a few related passages from Chapter 1, Pigs Is Equal.

Intelligence does not imply worthiness; in other words, it should not matter, from an ethical perspective, how intelligent a particular species or even any particular individual is – after all, we don’t shoot a human being who is not doing as well as his contemporaries at school. Nonetheless people tend to comment on the particular intelligence of these “horizontal humans,” as they are sometimes called because they are so much like us. (p. 37)

In many American factory farms, pigs are routinely sedated and kept in dark or semidark giant sheds so that all they can do is eat and sleep for twenty-three out of twenty-four hours. All the joie de vivre is driven out of the pig. Fattened to immobility, tails cut, teeth removed, their natural instincts to investigate frustrated by being forced to exist in a small pen, their sense of cleanliness ruined by being forced to urinate and defecate in their sleeping space, something no pig would ever do in nature – they have been utterly metamorphosed. So heavy are they that many find it difficult to stand on their own legs. Piglets are taken from their mothers when they are about three weeks old and put into “nursery” pens – where of course, no nursing takes place – with metal bars and concrete floors. They move to “growers” and “finishers,” and at about six months, when they attain the “slaughter weight” of 250 pounds, they are killed. [...] The mothers fare no better. They are confined in small pens or metal gestation crates (two feet wide) after pregnancy and four months later are transferred to farrowing crates where they barely have room to stand and lie down. They are denied straw bedding (too expensive). Unable to exercise or even move, they become very heavy (the point, of course) and subject to crippling leg disorders. Psychologically, they become “neurotic,” as the breeders call them, biting the bars of the crates, in a sitting position much like dogs, but looking dazed, showing all the signs of mourning the loss of their babies. Then it is time for the slaughterhouse. (p. 38-39)

In the wild, female sows getting ready to give birth will often construct protective nests as high as three feet. They line these farrowing nests with mouthfuls of grass and sometimes even manage to construct a roof made of sticks – a safe and comfortable home-like structure. On modern pig farms, where the mother is forced to give birth on concrete floors, her babies are often crushed when she rolls over. This never happens in the wild because the baby simply slips through the nest and finds her way back to her own teat. [...] Within forty-eight hours of birth the litter establishes a “teat order,” and from then on each piglet suckles only that particular teat on his mother. This seems to be a sort of dominance hierarchy, or at least has always been so interpreted. If allowed, piglets suckle for eleven to thirteen weeks or even longer. On factory farms, however, they are usually removed from the mother at three to four weeks and never see her again. This is so that, having stopped suckling, the mother can be returned into the breeding cycle and be made pregnant again a week or two later. (p. 46-47)

Breed, gestate, deliver, nurse, grieve, repeat: this is a sow’s lot. The whole damn “pork” subdivision of the megatheocorporatocracy rests on the female pig’s sexual organs – in her ability to give birth to the next generation of porcine “property.”

Parallels, anyone?

(Crossposted from.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare meat food pork factory farming intersections parallel oppressions animals and women Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson the pig who sang to the moon pig sow piglet ethology animal behavior flickr photos farm sanctuary books farmed animals

This C. David Coats quote (from the preface to his 1991 book, Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm) has been floating around the animal rights blogspherz for a few weeks now. While I think Coats is dead-on in his analysis, his choice of phrasing strikes me as a little…curious, shall we say.

Take a look:

Isn’t man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife – birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes – by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative – and fatal – health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out a card praying for “Peace on Earth.”

In the course of his patriarchy blaming, Coats assumes the language of the very patriarchy he’s indicting. Specifically, he continually employs variants of the term mankind when he’s actually referring to humankind: man is an amazing animal; he slaughters wildlife so that he can raise and eat “food” animals; man suffers from dietary-induced health conditions, which leads man to torture millions of “lab” animals in search of cures for these self-inflicted illnesses, and so on.

In fact, Coats only switches from androcentric to gender-neutral terms near the end of the paragraph – when he transitions from describing the actions of the oppressor (man) to the consequences of these actions on other human animals. To wit: “millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition”; “[m]eanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter” (“at the absurdity of man,” natch).

Possibly, this is an unintentional example of casual sexism – i.e., Coats accidentally employed largely androcentric verbiage when writing this preface. Since this isn’t primarily a feminist blog*, allow me to explain why Coats’s choice of terminology is problematic. By using language which explicitly refers to men – necessarily, at the exclusion of women – we erase women from the public sphere, from our written and oral histories, from our cultural narratives. These seemingly innocuous, male-specific terms have very real, very harmful practical consequences. Language shapes the way we think; words matter. In eliminating women from our discourse, so too do we eliminate them from our consciousness – shoving them from the public (political) to the private (domestic) sphere. “Man,” “mankind” and the like simply are not inclusive, universal terms for “men and women.” Nor is “convenience” an excuse – it’s not very hard to use “humankind” in place of “man” or “mankind,” “people” in place of “men,” etc.

More likely, though, I think Coats’s choice of words is thoughtful and intentional. As I noted above, the first half of the paragraph is front-loaded with androcentric terms: man this, he that. However, Coats quickly switches to more inclusive terms when describing the effects of man’s sins on other humans beings. Rather than a sexist slip-up, Coats’s transition from sexist to gender-neutral verbiage appears to be intentional, perhaps in an attempt to stress that man (as the primary profiteer in a patriarchy) is the oppressor, while other humans (women, children and some groups of disadvantaged men) – in addition to non-human animals – are man’s victims.

While I appreciate Coats’s intent (if this is indeed the case), I think his reasoning is misguided at best (and patronizing or outright sexist at worst). Most humans are both agents and victims of the patriarchy: precious few (men) occupy the top rungs of a hierarchy, while most everyone else – dangling precariously on the various middle rungs – are at once oppressed by those above, as they oppress those below. This goes for most everyone: men, women, children, people of color, religious minorities, LGBTQ individuals, etc. Even the most disadvantaged among us (humans) are able to exploit non-human animals, which collectively sit at the bottom of the pyramid. Just as we are all exploited, so too are we all exploiters.

Think about it: wherever women are genitally mutilated, forced into arranged or underage marriages, expected to birth babies throughout their fertile years, derided for being too feminine or not feminine enough, valued less than the fetuses in their wombs, or otherwise treated like receptacles for the male gaze, his magic seed, various bodily secretions, or outright male hatred, women still have the right to torture, enslave and slaughter animals for the most trivial of reasons, consume their corpses, wear their skins, etc.** Ditto people of color, people of lower socioeconomic statuses, children, homosexuals, transgendered people, people of disability, etc. The particulars may change, but the human privilege is always there.

In excluding women (and other marginalized groups) from the category of “oppressors,” Coats is obscuring the true nature of our relationships – to one another, to non-human animals and to the natural world around us. Truthfully, we all carry some sort of privilege, whether it’s over women, people of color, LGBTQ’s, or non-human animals (etc.). Old MacDonald (as in, The Megatheocorporatocracy (TM) formerly known as Old MacDonald) may own that factory farm, but we all reap its benefits (and consequences). We all need to check our privilege at the door.

The good news? We all have the opportunity for self-improvement, personal growth and transformation. You can start by going vegan, if you haven’t already.

Step #2: ditch the sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic/sizeist/ableist/speciesist language, please.

——————

* Crossposted from.

** Hence the Sarah Palin photo at the top of this post: she was (and continues to be) the victim of countless misogynist attacks during the 2008 election cycle, yes, but she also victimizes non-human animals on both a personal (hunting, food, clothing, entertainment) and public (gov’t policy) basis.

——————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare language intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism racism speciesism C. David Coats Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm an amazing animal violence the cycle of violence sarah palin androcentric mankind humankind feminism feminist flickr photo

Valentines Day? Meh. I’ve never been very big on the holiday. Through most of high school, I was boyfriend-less, and thus predictably unimpressed with February 14th. The husband and I have celebrated it on and off over the years, but mostly in a half-assed kind of way: veg*n chocolates here, a dinner in there. One problem I’ve always had with V-Day is the idea of forced, scheduled romanticism. Why should the Mr. and I only go on dates or surprise one another with gifts on February 14th, eh? And why do so on a day in which the prices are all jacked up and the theaters and restaurants, obscenely crowded?

Additionally, in the few years since my budding feminism has blossomed into a thorny, black, man-hating rose, I’ve actively resisted engaging in a commercialized, wasteful and largely heteronormative holiday. Diamonds? Roses? Tacky Bandit Bears? Bargained sex? IBTP.

So, in keeping with my previous re- evaluation and -imagining of the wintry holidays, I’ve been thinking about celebrating Valentines Day in a different way. While I try to pamper my furkids – i.e., my dogs – on a daily basis, I thought it might be fun to celebrate them this Saturday. After all, there is no doggeh equivalent of “Mother’s Day” or “Grandparent’s Day” – so why not transform a lackluster holiday into it?

There are many ways you can toss Valentines Day to the dogs (or cats, rats, gerbils, pigs…whatever species your kiddos belong to). Dogs Deserve Better, for example, holds an annual Valentines Day card drive for chained dogs. During “Have a Heart for Chained Dogs Week,” Valentines – complete with informational brochures, coupons for dog food, etc. – are delivered to the “owners” of chained dogs, with the ultimate goal of freeing these animals and bringing them back into the home. You can donate money to fund the effort, or volunteer by submitting the addresses of homes that have chained dogs, creating or delivering Valentines, and gathering donations of coupons and such. If your heart belongs to a species other than canine, you can donate your time or money to help a local or species-specific organization on or around the 14th.

As for your own furkids, here are four ways you can pamper them this Saturday. Since I’ve got five dogs, these are all canine-specific, but you can adjust accordingly.

1. Take your dog for a walk or hike. Set some time aside for a leisurely stroll, walk, run or hike – or some combination thereof – and let your dog lead the way. Allow her to walk you, wherever she chooses to go (within reason, of course). If she wants to spend five minutes sniffing and marking that tree at the corner of the street, let her. It’s her day, remember? Just enjoy her company, the beautiful weather, the sights and sounds.

2. Play with your dog. If the weather’s not cooperating, or if you’re unable to leave the house or yard with your dog, spend the day playing with her, off and on, at her behest. Bounce the tennis ball off of the house with her, play fetch with her favorite squeaky toy, fill a Kong with some (untainted) peanut butter, or just tie a few socks together and have a good game of tug-of-war. You don’t need to spend a ton of money on fancy toys – make your own. Sticks are great for fetch, and you can hide treats in socks, under blankets, or in your hands. Run around the yard like a total goofball, enticing her to chase you (or vice versa). Grab a human partner and play hide and seek with your dog. If she’s an only dog, and gets on well with other dogs, schedule a play date and entertain both her and her BFF.

Naturally, you need to consider your individual dogs’ temperament when choosing games and friends for her. If she gets anxious at the prospect of your absence, for example, hide and seek probably isn’t the best choice. You know your dog; you know what she likes. Now make it happen!

3. Bake your dog some special, homemade treats. Many commercially available dog treats contain all sorts of disgusting and harmful ingredients. Organic, all-natural and/or vegetarian/vegan treats, on the other hand, can be pricey. So why not bake your own treats, and show your dog just how much you really love her?

It’s not as hard as you might think (seriously, if I can do it…), and many dogs aren’t fussy customers, anywho. You can find a number of recipes online; personally, I love Yummy for Dogs.

4. Give your dog a massage. Yes, you heard me right. Your dog’s got muscles, just like you – and sometimes they ache, just like yours. Dogs love massages! (Again, with the obvious caveat “know your dog and her temperament.”)

There are many how-to dog (and cat, horse, etc.) massage books, but really, it’s at least 50% common sense. Think about which muscle groups your dog exercises, which body parts she uses as a matter of course. Just as with humans, the neck, shoulders, and back get a good workout. Using light strokes, massage your dog’s neck, shoulders, legs, back. Always err on the side of caution, using less pressure instead of more. If your dog seems nervous, uncomfortable or in pain, stop. Listen to her, making a note of what she seems to enjoy.

One advantage to massaging dogs vs. humans is that their loose skin and fur (especially if your dog is short-haired) make it easier to massage the skin and underlying muscles. Using your thumb and forefinger, grab a bit of loose skin – on the neck, for instance, and rub it between your fingers, moving down as you do so. The fur makes for a smooth transition – none of the chafing that you get with human skin.

In their 1/13/09 newsletter, DDB offers three massage techniques you can try on your dog (excerpted from 97 Ways to Make a Dog Smile by Jenny Langbehn, 2003 Workman Publishing Co. NY):

1. Lower-Ear Noogies

At the base of the ear, gently rub your knuckle in a “noogie” fashion. (To make a noogie, form a half fist with your knuckles sticking out.) This can also be done for the “inner ear noogie by using the knuckle of your middle finger, rub the piece of cartilage that just out at the entrance to the inside of your dog’s ear)

2. Make a “Hand-Sandwich”

When your dog is lying on its side, slip your hand between your dog and the floor, starting at the shoulder, and run you hand slowly along the length of the body. The ripple will result in canine ecstasy. Your dog will probably roll onto the flat of it’s back, which means you can do this again, using both hands-one on each side.

3. The Full-Body Massage

Starting at the snout, thoroughly and methodically massage the entire length of your dog’s body.

Here are some additional online resources to get you started:

Monkey See: How to Massage Your Dog

Center for Integrative Animal Health: Animal Massage: the Touch that Heals

Backing up your dog with Massage (.pdf)

dogtime: Dog Alternative Health: Dog Massage

Suite 101: Home Massage for Dogs; Tips for Helping Your Dog Relax

If you’d like to refine your dog massage techniques, Michael Fox’s The Healing Touch for Dogs: The Proven Massage Program for Dogs is an excellent resource (he also wrote The Healing Touch for Cats: The Proven Massage Program for Cats, for the cat peoples in the audience).

Of course, you need not confine your pampering to Valentine’s Day. Exercise your dog every day, take a leisurely stroll as time permits, pet and massage her while relaxing on the couch, and bake your dog a batch of treats “just because.” One day, you’ll look back and realize that you’d give anything to walk just one more block with her.

(Crossposted from.)

——————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare pet companion animal dog canine cat feline holidays observances companion care valentines day v-day dog massage massage dog treats yummy for dogs dog games dog toys flickr photos my furbabies

Sorry for the lack of posts this week, y’all. I’ve been sick since Monday night, and feel ill-equipped to do much more than the daily link roundups. I imagine that the maxim against blogging while drunk includes blogging while drunk on NyQuil. Anywho, I have a number of post ideas on the back burner, so hopefully I’ll be coherent enough by mid-week next week to resume my regular blogging schedule.

Until then, did anyone happen to catch the latest installment of ABC News’ What Would You Do? Basically, it’s a hidden camera type show, wherein ABC News sets up various discomfiting situations in order to determine how the observers stooges will respond. For example, one segment that got some play on the feminist blogs involved a couple (of actors) who were seemingly out at a bar on a first date. When the woman excused herself to the restroom, the man (quite obviously) slipped something in her drink. Cue the crazy.

I only caught the last twenty minutes or so Tuesday night’s episode, but that was more than enough to make me wish I hadn’t. In the last segment, “Dog Left Inside a Hot Car,” a large, fluffy Golden Retriever is left inside a car parked on a suburban street on a hot summer (spring?) day. (The car actually has a hidden A/C unit cranked, and the dog’s trainer is lying on the backseat floor, covered by a blanket.) The windows are cracked so the dog’s barks are audible, and the dog’s “owner” walks to and from the car several times in order to see whether observers will confront him. Strategically placed hidden cameras record passerby reactions.

Unfortunately, ABC News doesn’t appear to allow embedding (grrrr!), so here’s the part where I send you to their website to watch the video.

So, what are your thoughts? How do you think the passerby handled the situation? Did the results exceed your expectations, or fall short? And wtf about those firefighters, eh?

As noted at the beginning of the clip, ABC News also tried this experiment with a (faux) baby: Would You Help This Baby? As with the dog, a fake baby is left inside a hot car (seemingly the same car, parked on the same suburban street, in similar weather conditions). Windows are cracked, so passerby can plainly hear the “baby” crying. As with the dog’s owner, the “baby’s” mother returns to the car after running errands, to see how the gathering crowd reacts to her.*

Hop on over to ABC’s website to watch the baby clip, then meet me back here.

Compare the bystanders’ reactions when it’s a baby – as opposed to a dog – left in a hot car. Granted, the differences could be the result of some seriously heavy editing, but I doubt it. People appear much quicker to take action, to assume responsibility for the “baby” and “make it their business,” and to confront the “mother” with anger, than they did with the dog and her “owner.”

While babies are probably at greater risk of being stolen than are dogs (e.g., kidnapped babies command a higher black market price than kidnapped dogs), both are at risk of suffering heatstroke and death when left in a hot car. Both are sentient beings, capable of feeling pain and suffering. And yet, bystanders were somewhat hesitant to intervene to save the dog. Meh. Yet another consequence of viewing animals as property – wouldn’t want to tell someone what he can and can’t do with “his” dog-property, am I right?

So what should you do if you see a dog – or a baby – left alone inside a car?

First, know your state laws. www.animallaw.info offers this summary, along with a state-by-state table of applicable laws:

Is it illegal to leave your dog in a parked car? The answer to this question, of course, depends on in the state in which you live. Actually, only 13 states (AZ, CA, IL, ME, MD, MN, NV, NH, NJ, ND, SD, VT, and WV) have statutes that specifically prohibit leaving an animal in confined vehicle. The next factor important to the question is the condition under which the the animal is left in the vehicle. Most of these laws provide that the animal must be confined or unattended in a parked or stationary vehicle. Further, the laws add that in order for a person to violate the law, the conditions have to endanger the animal’s life. Some of the statutes specifically state that extreme hot or cold temperatures, lack of adequate ventilation, or failing to provide proper food or drink meet this definition. Other laws are more vague and just require that the conditions are such that physical injury or death is likely to result.

While not all states have laws that address animals in parked vehicles, numerous local ordinances prohibit this, and more may be enacted. It is critical then that owners are aware of their local laws concerning this subject. Even with out a state or local law, this action could still constitute cruelty under some circumstances. In fact, in the Texas case of Lopez v. State, the defendant left his dog in his car on a hot day to go and watch a movie in a theater. He was ultimately convicted under the state’s anti-cruelty law. Notably, Texas does not have a statute that specifically addresses dogs left in parked vehicles.

Thus, while it may not be illegal to leave a dog (or other non-human animal) unattended in a parked vehicle in your state or locality, if the animal is in danger due to extremely hot, extremely cold, or even moderate temperatures, the animal’s “owner” may be in violation of anti-cruelty laws anyway. It’s imperative that you know your state and locality’s laws, just in case you encounter an obstinate or ignorant police officer, security guard, etc. (such as the firefighters in ABC News’ dog clip). It might be a good idea to print out the relevant legislation and keep a copy in your glove box, for good measure.

When you spot a dog (or other animal, including a baby or young child) left alone inside a (hot or otherwise dangerous) vehicle, PETA recommends that you do the following:

If you see a dog in a car and in distress, take down the car’s color, model, make, and license-plate number, have the owner paged inside nearby stores, and call local humane authorities or police. Have someone keep an eye on the dog. If police are unresponsive or too slow and the dog’s life appears to be in imminent danger, find a witness (or several) who will back your assessment, take steps to remove the suffering animal, and then wait for authorities to arrive.

Also, check out API’s study of how quickly the interior of a car can heat up, even with the windows cracked – and even in moderate summer temps. (Again, you might want to print this table up, as further evidence to present to skeptical officers, security guards, “owners,” etc.)

PETA notes, for instance, that even

On a mild 73ºF day, the temperature inside a car can reach 120ºF in 30 minutes. On a 90ºF day, the interior of a vehicle can reach 160ºF in minutes.

Finally, Born Free has some educational materials available at www.mydogiscool.com. If you see an animal left unattended in a car – but not in danger – leave one of their fliers on the vehicle’s windshield. It’s never a good idea to leave an animal unattended, no matter the temperature outside, because there are other risks, too; the car might be stolen, for example.

My dogs are cool. How about yours?

* Though, I should note that the “owner” in the dog clip is a man, while “mom” is a woman, making comparisons between the two experiments a little more difficult. For example, bystanders might feel more threatened by – and thus less likely to confront – a man vs. a woman.

(Crossposted from.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare dog canine pet companion animal hot car abc news what would you do hidden camera baby animal abuse animal cruelty cruelty to animals child abuse peta born free my dog is cool companion care video video blogging pop culture dog care