Feb 112013
 
 February 11, 2013  Posted by  Tagged with: ,

A Typical New Zealand Cat

Everybody knows that cats are evil. But nobody understands this more than the birds of New Zealand, which have been mercilessly hunted down by the ferocious felines. So why do we care? There are a number of endangered birds in New Zealand, a number of which are flightless. Gareth Morgan, a prominent New Zealand economist, has suggested that New Zealand eliminate cats from the country altogether. Morgan claims that one of the country’s greatest assets is its natural resources and wildlife, and that cats are directly to blame for the endangered status of numerous birds. Of course, New Zealand is a nation of cat ladies, with more cats per capita than any other country in the world. Clearly, this sets the stage for a war of epic proportions: bird lovers v. cat ladies. Anybody who has had any experience with the interwebs understands the significance of this event.

Let’s take a step back for a second. Does the government have the power to control species, and perhaps more importantly, should they? This has occurred in the past, but it should be noted that Morgan’s plan doesn’t call for an all out cat killfest-instead, it suggests that the cat population be controlled and monitored. Given that feral cats are blamed for the majority of bird kills in New Zealand, it makes sense that Morgan’s plan emphasizes the spaying and neutering of cats. Some opponents to Morgan’s plan however cite that nature should be allowed to take its course. Unfortunately, over 30 bird species in New Zealand have gone extinct already, and many more are endangered due to the presence of imported cats. It seems to be a fair compromise for New Zealanders to make to preserve the biodiversity that makes New Zealand so special. But maybe that’s just because I’m a dog person.

Nov 212012
 
 November 21, 2012  Posted by  Tagged with: , , ,

Before you dig into your Thanksgiving turkey (or am I too late?), consider this fun fact: the President of the United States pardons a turkey at an official ceremony in the White House every year and saves it from slaughter.

This tradition started in 1989 with President George H. Bush.  Among the lucky few birds that have been spared are Katie and Zack in 2001 (named after children of the Chairman of the National Turkey Federation),  Marshmallow and Yam in 2005, and Liberty and Peace last Thanksgiving.

The process  is full of pomp.  The turkeys (one for the ceremony and one alternate) are selected at birth and trained to handle loud noises, crowds, and flash photography. They are brought into D.C. via motorcade and stay in a deluxe suite at the W Hotel, feasting on berries, corn, and acorn the night before the event. After their official duty, they are whisked off to Mount Vernon.

All is done in good jest and the holiday spirit, but it raises some “sort of” serious questions:

1. Why pardon turkeys at all?  Does this point to a larger issue about animal cruelty or food (over)consumption? Surely, there’s a reason why we cringe when we see Governor Palin pardoning a turkey while his fellow birds are being butchered in the background::

2. And what about the names? Why Liberty?  Why Peace?  And why was Liberty the chosen bird and Peace the alternate?  Surely it would have been bad taste to name the bird Osama.  But in the name of all things to be pardoned, what about Congress or the Economy? There must be a method to the madness of selecting these select birds—if the act is symbolic, then the names must be as well.

Just some food for thought.  Happy Thanksgiving!

Sep 292011
 
 September 29, 2011  Posted by  Tagged with:

Back when I was in primary school in Kenya, a hyena ate three of my neighbor’s goats during the night. On discovering this horrible fact in the morning, she called for help from the villagers and soon her compound was teeming with spear-wielding villagers ready to hunt down the culprit. Within an hour, they had found the hyena and had put it to death; and I of course finally got a chance to put a face to that animal that always made horrible laughs at night.

Recently, when I read this AtlanticWire post, I was reminded of the fact that I have had the opportunity to live in two different worlds; one that has a media that ardently advocates for the rights of animals, and another that believes that destructive wildlife has no right to trample on and feed on their only source of livelihood. The video highlights a lot of realities about the two worlds:

Continue reading »

Sep 232011
 
 September 23, 2011  Posted by  Tagged with: , ,

PETA doesn’t beat around the bush. Rather, it is generally quite outspoken and direct about our questionable animal practices. And it doesn’t shy away from provocative advertising tactics, often with the help from scantily clad women.

PETA poster from 1994. Photograph: Rex Features. Source: The Guardian

But it seems like the folks at PETA are kicking it up a notch. NPR reports that PETA is planning a website that will “feature ‘tantalizing’ videos and photographs” (read: pornography) leading to its usual animal rights messages. Never mind that “tantalizing” summons up images of that medium-rare filet mignon oozing with the last drops of life force, it’s easy to see why this new initiative is questionable. The obvious objection is that using an immorality to promote an ethical viewpoint reeks of hypocrisy. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, this new enticement is bound to be a turn-off for “mainstream” audience, adding further to the perception of PETA as a fringe movement.

But are there really no justifiable reasons to put naked bodies on the line for animal rights? Continue reading »

Sep 222011
 
 September 22, 2011  Posted by  Tagged with: ,

Disclaimer: I love steak. I’m not just talking the occasional steak every now and then; I’m talking three days a week growing up I enjoyed a Porterhouse and a baked potato. It’s a South Dakota thing.

Yvonne the cow

Pictured here is Yvonne the elusive cow. Photo from NPR.

Now that we have any potential conflicts illuminated, meet Yvonne. Yvonne is German cow who stuck it to the man and ran away moments before she was to be slaughtered. It seems quite ordinary that a cow would get frightened as it is being ushered to its death. What is out of the ordinary is that Yvonne’s escape was successful. Moreover, she wasn’t just able to finagle her way out of the slaughterhouse line; Yvonne has managed to evade:

  • “Hunters on a shoot-to-kill mission (since called off);
  • Search parties of volunteers trying to find the cow before the hunters did;
  • Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras;
  • A reward of 10,000 euros ($14,533), offered by Bild, a German tabloid;
  • Entreaties delivered via animal psychic, who relayed that Yvonne “didn’t feel ready” to return to the world of humans.
  • Bovine lures, including an (allegedly) attractive bull ox, her “sister cow” Waltraud, and Yvonne’s calf, Friesi.” (NPR)

The extreme measures to catch Yvonne came when she almost ran into a police officer on the highway and she was subsequently named a ‘public safety hazard.’ Herein lies my first question: do the police have a right to put a bounty on this cow? If an all out war is declared every time a deer causes a car accident the necessary expansion in government workers is enough to cause the Republican Party to have an aneurism. That simply doesn’t seem like a sensible way of spending federal money.

And then there is the issue of special treatment. The efforts to capture Yvonne quickly caught public attention and a social movement behind the protection of her ensued (Yvonne’s Facebook page). While I’m entirely on Team Yvonne, why should it matter that society has a crush on this cow? If she is worthy of her ‘public safety hazard’ title, then the government ought to protect its citizens and eliminate any risk (or “risk”) Yvonne poses; we have no issue with the government capturing rogue skunks and other less-appealing “risk” critters.

Even if she isn’t a risk, the matter isn’t society’s decision to make. Now that an animal sanctuary has bought her, Yvonne is private property. Just because my dog is infinitely more appealing than my neighbor’s, the neighborhood is not allowed to impose their opinion on my dogs behavior any more so than on the ugly, yappy dog next door.

The third question is simple: at what point should this cow simply be left alone? Clearly she has an uncompromising desire to be free and apparently she is capable of surviving on her own. It’s not like Colonel Gaddafi trying to live out the rest of his years in peace – it’s a cow. She has been paid for. Assuming she isn’t an imposition on society, why can’t she just enjoy her bovine justice? Not a far leap from this question is the foundation to vegetarianism/veganism, but as the disclaimer warned, that’s not an argument I am going to explore.

Mar 242011
 
 March 24, 2011  Posted by  Tagged with: , , ,

Last year at June, an angry 19 year old teenager choked and threw a hamster out of the house and killed it instantly, and about three weeks ago, she was arrested and charged with aggravated cruelty to animals and faced up to two years in prison. I was pretty horrified when I first heard of this, and judging from some of the comments I’ve read from various blogs, the public seems indignant at what she has done.

There is probably not much debate on whether her action was humane or not, what I think really is worth talking about is Mark Bittman’s response in the New York Times. Bittman argues that we torture animals everyday in meat factories and we make it okay because we eat the animals (warning: he included some really graphic videos). The fact that a teenager is charged with a federal felony for killing a hamster while industries get away with grinding up 200 million chicks alive in a year is something that really troubles me.

Continue reading »

Mar 172011
 
 March 17, 2011  Posted by  Tagged with: , ,

Photo via Impressions of Saratoga Online

Everyone knows drinking alcohol and driving vehicles don’t make a good match. But what about handling other means of transportation while under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Recently, a public safety ad in Montana which broadcasts catching a ride home with a horse as a metaphor for finding a safe ride home is now actually calling into question whether riding your horse home while intoxicated is illegal.

According to Montana law, horseback riding while drunk is, in fact, legal, as an animal is not lawfully defined as a vehicle (this isn’t the case in Colorado). So should Duke consider installing a safe-ride horse service to take students between East and West campus post-Wednesday-night Shooters (it may get you home faster than waiting for that C-2)? Not quite.

Continue reading »

Jan 302011
 
 January 30, 2011  Posted by  Tagged with: , , ,

In New Zealand, that is the question. Just last September the BBC World News front page featured a headline that read like something out of The Onion: “Row Over NZ Possum Tossing Contest.”

The contest occurred at a local NZ elementary school…after all, what third grader doesn’t want to toss a possum during recess? For the animal-tossing uncultured among us, a possum-tossing contest entails the following: one, catching and humanely killing possums; two, tossing them as far as you can. That’s about it. See the video below for an example.  Sounds like a normal Sunday for me…

Continue reading »