Maximilian Werner: The senseless treatment of predators in the West

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.

This post is part of a series on humans' destruction of the natural world.


[dropcap]G[/dropcap]iven the many challenges we face as humans, it’s easy to ignore the non-human world and the plight of other animals besides ourselves. I wonder how many Utahans know about the American West’s vicious and unrelenting extermination campaign against predators.

My guess is not many. Because if people knew that thousands of these beautiful and important animals — including cougars, black bears, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, and wolves — are shot, trapped and poisoned every year for people’s amusement or at the behest of livestock producers and hunters, I suspect that this disgusting, irrational and senseless treatment of predators would have ended long ago.

One would hope that we would have learned from the extermination campaigns of the past, when many species were extirpated from the landscape to the detriment of entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, when it comes to advocating for the interests of others, humans are notoriously slow learners.

I have long known about Utah’s shameful treatment of predators (for example, our misguided coyote bounty program), but not until I began studying wolf and grizzly bear management in southwest Montana, and saw how easily it was for state and federal agencies to destroy these animals for reasons that were arguable at best, that I realized the extent and pervasiveness of this problem.


The self-serving and often toxic influence of ranching, hunting and gun lobbies have long deformed the policies of Federal and state organs charged with the management and care of our wildlife.


Now it seems that a day does not go by when I don’t hear of some half-baked plan to make it even easier to kill predators.

Just last week a senator from Idaho introduced “emergency legislation” that would allow Idahoans with a hunting license and a wolf tag to shoot wolves year-round in what the bill describes as “wolf free zones.” These zones, which will be south of I-84 and the Snake River, sound a lot like Wyoming’s “predator zone,” which, because it includes 85% of the state, may as well just be called “Wyoming.” Any wolf unlucky enough to wander into that zone can, in the words of one wolf advocacy website, “be killed by almost any method, at any time, in any number and without a license.”

Similarly, in late December of 2019 Utah’s own Sens. Mike Lee and Mitt Romney joined Sen. Rob Johnson, R-Wisc., to introduce S. 3140, the American Wild Game and Livestock Protection Act. If approved, this bill (whose title conflates wild game with livestock) will delist gray wolves nationwide (currently only Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have this distinction) and prohibit judicial review.

If this happens, and delisting becomes the law of the land, we can expect other states to adopt equally barbaric, unscientific and indiscriminate management policies of their own and wolves will again be pushed to the brink of extinction.

More recently, “Rural Person of the Year” Rep. Carl Albrecht, also from Utah, just introduced HB 125, the purpose of which is to boost deer and elk populations by ramping up both the Division of Wildlife Resources’ predator control program and trophy hunting quotas of mountain lions, black bears, bobcats and coyotes.

If the reader is wondering if deer and elk populations in are in trouble, the short answer is no. So why HB 125? So that there are more deer and elk for hunters to kill, of course. I don’t know about the reader, but I am not persuaded by this reasoning for killing our wildlife.

The news isn’t all bad, however. In 2016, California recorded its first wolf pack since the 1920’s, as has Colorado just within the last week. A handful of packs have also found their way to Washington and Oregon. A small pack of Mexican gray wolves is trying to survive along the New Mexico and Arizona border. Wolves are all around us. One day very soon they will find their way to Utah. I hope that we do not fail them.


About the Author
Maximilian Werner is an Associate Professor (Lecturer) of Rhetoric and Writing Studies at the University of Utah.  His most recent book Wolves, Grizzlies, and Greenhorns--Death and Coexistence in the American West will be published this fall. He can be reached at: mswerner@gmail.com and @ProfMWerner. 



black-horizontal

The Russian Peace Threat examines Russophobia, American Exceptionalism and other urgent topics




The Carnage of Wolf Trapping in Idaho

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Federal speciesism fueled, as usual, by powerful agro-ranching interests, takes a heavy toll in pain and death in the wild. Meantime, the mass media barely covers this old and shameful story.


 


One might imagine the immoral and barbaric persecution of this animal would have ceased by the 21st century, but then one would be very wrong.


[dropcap]A[/dropcap] new public records request to Idaho Department of Fish and Game reveals that Idaho wolf trappers are capturing nearly as many non-target species as they are capturing wolves. 47% of the species captured between the 2012/2013 to 2018/2019 trapping seasons, including rare fishers, wolverine, eagle, and lynx were non-target species. Of the non-target species captured, 57% of those were killed. During the period covered by the public records response, wolf trappers killed 813 wolves, caught 620 non-target species of which 269 were released alive and 351 were killed. It is likely that a percentage of those animals that were released alive eventually died from injuries sustained from the traps that either killed them outright or made it difficult for them to find food.

The request was for “data showing capture or mortality of non-target species such as deer, elk, mountain lions, fishers, wolverines, eagles, pets, bobcat, etc. caught by wolf trappers in Idaho between the dates January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2019.”

previous public records request in 2013 revealed similar problems with wolf and fur trappers in Idaho. That request revealed that 58% of the species captured by trappers who also had a wolf trapping permit, were non-target species.

Some of the species caught by trappers indicates that not all of the species were captured while trying to trap wolves. For example, the data reveals that two fish were killed which is probably more indicative of beaver or muskrat trapping as the cause. The public records response did not explain much about the records received.

The non-target species included bobcat (29), deer (206), dog (15), duck (21), eagle (1), elk (9), fish (2), fisher (56), goose (3), house cat (14), lion (89), lynx (1), magpie (32), marten (2), moose (10), otter (5), porcupine (8), rabbit (42), raccoon (6), raven (5), red fox (8), snowshoe hare (9), squirrel (39), Stellars jay (2), wolf (4), and wolverine (2).

The fisher (Pekania pennanti) is a small, carnivorous mammal native to North America.


 

The rare species caught included an eagle, 56 fishers, a lynx, and two wolverines. There is no open season for fisher, kit fox, lynx, or wolverine in Idaho. Lynx are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, fisher and wolverine have active petitions to list them under the Endangered Species Act and eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Here is the breakdown of the data:




About the author(s)
Ken Cole is an activist journalist with an interest in the ethical treatment of all animals.

 


Thank you for visiting our animal defence section. Before leaving, please take a moment to reflect on these mind-numbing institutionalized cruelties.
The wheels of business and human food compulsions—often exacerbated by reactionary creeds— are implacable and totally lacking in compassion. This is a downed cow, badly hurt, but still being dragged to slaughter. Click on this image to fully appreciate this horror repeated millions of times every day around the world. With plentiful non-animal meat substitutes that fool the palate, there is no longer reason for this senseless suffering. And meat consumption is a serious ecoanimal crime. The tyranny of the palate must be broken. Please consider changing your habits and those around you in this regard.


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]





Marxism and the Animal Question

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


by Maila Costa


Marx, like many enlightenment philosophers, was indeed rather blind to the plight of animals, but this was less from considered thought on the question than an automatic acceptance of the prevailing winds of his time, rebellious winds that, after "dethroning king and God," had put man in their place. This act had made many of them into "superhumanists". The road to that liberation had taken thousands of years, and humanity had paid a heavy price and many tears for their subjection to the whims of mortals and self-inflicted superstitions, so the sense of liberation and exultation among those in the vanguard of this revolution made it easy to think that the natural locus of attention for all social questions should be man and little else. That, in simplified form, is the psychosocial origin  of that famous dictum, "man is the measure of all things". That the rule became an axiom, precisely at the dawn of capitalism's leap into modern industrialism, an industrialism born into an amoral matrix, certified the life of tyranny assigned to most animals deemed useful in profitable commerce.—PG

Poster of painting »Evolution of Revolution«, by 420 x 594 mm, 170g art paper, offset, by German artists Hartmut Kiewert. Please support this artist if you can. His posters are beautiful, unique, and extremey inexpensive.



First run on January 28, 2020

[dropcap]C[/dropcap]ritical studies on the animal question are practically unanimous in relating the intensification of animal exploitation to the capitalist mode of production. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Marxists are unaware of this discussion, and eco-socialism itself is rather timid in punctuating the contradictions regarding animal abuse, as can be seen in the International Ecosocialist Manifesto,1 which at no time mentions the animal issue.

Analyses of the relationship between humans and other animals are hegemonized by liberal and poststructuralist theories, which the Marxist philosopher Marco Maurizi calls “metaphysical anti-speciesism”.2 According to Maurizi, they are moralizing and disregard the totality of the historical processes which led to the systematic exploitation of animals, placing the human being as generically responsible for this social practice.

In the academic field, the struggle for animals also focuses on movements in conformity with bourgeois society, partly as a result of the predominance of liberal ideology, but also of Marxist neglect regarding the degrading situation in which animals under the custody of capitalist industry are found.

A forerunner of the “animalist” debate within Marxism, Ted Benton,3 was one of those responsible for criticizing the anthropocentric characteristic of Marxian work. The defence against this criticism has been highlighted in the works of Foster, Stache, Clark4 and Saito,5 claiming that, contrary to the accusations of Benton and other ecologists, Marx was one of the first to point out the metabolic disruption between man and nature, caused by capitalism.6

In spite of Marx having written about the objective consequences of land and the alienation of man from nature ,7 he did not focus on studying the relationship between humans and other sentient beings. This was not the first time that Marx would have overlooked a determinant category for the emergence and maintenance of capitalism, as he did in relation to unpaid work of women in social reproduction.8

It is evident, nevertheless, that Marxist anthropocentrism is concerned with the centrality of human historical activity as a transformer of its environment and sociability, and not of contempt for other animals. When Marx raises human activity to the level of planned work compared to the instinctual work of other animals,9 he exposes the differences between both activities and at no time invokes a natural right of humankind to other animals due to the fact of the latter’s work be mostly immediate.

In short, the debate regarding whether Marx was speciesist or not is irrelevant, since being anachronistic it must not overlap with the historicity of animal manipulation. Historical materialism seeks to understand a time and its phenomena based on its mode of production and its consolidation throughout history. Hence, the lack of Marxian animal studies, shouldn’t be more important than the animal exploitation itself, which is one of the most common and naturalized social practices in the current mode of production.

The vast Marxian work counts with various references to animals, all of which are descriptive or comparative, such as when he describes the expulsion of peasants for the transformation of their crops into sheep pastures in England, or when he tries to explain, through the activity of bees, the difference between human labour and the work of other animals.10 It is evident, however, the predominance of an unconcerned narrative towards them. Descartes’ mechanistic materialism, which compared animals to clocks,11 still influenced the thinking of the time and it was fundamental in legitimizing the use of animals as inanimate goods by the new capitalist order.12 In other words, we do not exploit animals because we think they are inferior, on the contrary, we consider animals as inferior because we exploit them.13

In addition, the commodification of animals in the nineteenth century and earlier centuries took place on a much smaller scale than we know nowadays and has developed as technological improvements and transformations in the mode of production evolved. As capitalism advanced, animals were no longer used primarily for the purposes of certain forms of social reproduction (feeding, traction, clothing and transportation, etc.) – but instead were used as means of production for the purpose of accumulation and value aggregation.14 The food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and fashion industries are currently the largest animal exploiters and together they make up one of the world’s leading economic sectors. They are responsible for the incarceration, torture, mutilation, sexual exploitation and death of billions of animals every year. In the agrarian sector alone, the animal industry is responsible for 40% of world revenues and for the predominance of land use.15

Nowadays there is consensus on the well-being of pets. These, included in the sphere of moral consideration and consumption – through their tutors – are not subject to the systematic and widespread exploitation which animals owned by capitalists suffer. The domestic animal is even considered as a family member, a resident of the house, having its interests normally met, its emotions considered and its comfort and safety normally guaranteed, which even configures a new type of household. Homeless animals also rely on the population’s efforts to be sheltered and fed, even if this is not always objectively possible. Besides, pets are usually protected against abuse by law. On the other hand, animals that are domesticated by the industry are viewed as commodities by capitalists. They are sold as processed products, separated from their living and sentient origin and all the harmful processes of production. Fetishism, in this case, not only dehumanizes by suppressing all the work contained in those so-called commodities and by alienating both the worker, whose duty it is to kill, and the consumer. It also de-animalizes them by depriving the animals of their natural life, disregarding their sentience, exploiting and slaughtering them to be transformed into a product for the purpose of capital accumulation.

Due to the impossibility of animals organizing themselves to resist the oppression they suffer, they are taken as natural resources that are transformed into a means of production. Because they are not labour sellers or consumers, animals cannot independently integrate economically into bourgeois society. This difference puts them at a disadvantage compared to other oppressed groups, even the most oppressed among humans, who are able to organize and claim their interests collectively.16 This difference is what makes humans the subjects of their own liberation, whilst animals are objects of liberation.17

The autonomous instinct for animals is to resist individually. In this sense, it is through the bourgeois state that control over animals is ensured in order to meet the interests of corporations.18 Capitalists are permitted to indulge in the most degrading practices to contain the resistance and the natural behaviour of animals, ignoring their ability to suffer. These practices include – but are not limited to – incarceration and mutilation and are considered as legitimate ways to prevent injury and death by the scientific and legal community.19

The infliction of suffering in order to contain the natural expression of the animal masks itself as an ethical measure by alleging to prevent animals from being injured, when in fact it is about avoiding damage to the value of the asset.20 These measures aim to remedy a situation of conflict caused by the capitalist industry itself by imposing an extremely artificial way of life on animals that are natural. In the end, these same animals will be injured and killed when it is in the owner’s interest that their raw material be transformed into products.

Lukács reminds us that Marx has always criticized every romantic veneration for the less evolved past, every attempt to employ it against objectively superior developments.21 He also highlights the gigantic difference between becoming the other through a spontaneous and involuntary biological process of adaptation to new natural facts or as a result of one’s own social praxis.22 In this sense, the exploratory relationship between humans and other animals is part of a spontaneous process, which in the past took place in a metabolic way, evolving to become a social practice that met the needs of the growing population and which, in the last century, has become a destructive economic practice due to the endless profit capitalist essence. This practice no longer corresponds to natural or historical needs, due to the development of the forces of production, which would enable other ways to obtain food and other resources that we previously obtained through animals, at the cost of their suffering and withdrawal of their autonomy. Modern technology outperforms the animal industry with respect to the production of organic and synthetic materials, as well as agroecology, proposed by social movements for land reform and use,23 outperforms agribusiness for its effectiveness in relation to soil recovery, preservation of biodiversity, total production and, consequently, food quality.24

Malm affirms that presenting certain social relations as if they were natural properties of the species is not new. De-historicizing, universalizing and naturalizing a specific mode of production of a given time and place are part of the classic strategies of ideological legitimation.25 By no means is any human social practice justified in itself, since already detached from immediate natural needs, human practices are historical and, therefore, political. Revolutionary praxis proposes to overcome the spontaneity of common sense in order to instead build a critical and coherent conception of the world. The current level of development of the productive forces allows us to think about resolving the issue of animal suffering and its inclusion in the struggle for emancipation, since the further we move from animality and the more we develop our ability to modify our environment and our form of sociability, the more obsolete the barbaric treatment of animals becomes.

It must be recognized, moreover, that due to ecological and social damage, the animal industries are irrational. The conversion of these industries into forms of production where we do not see the world through its commodities – but rather through its essence, as an ecologically sustainable, vegan and socially planned production – would be an appropriate socialist demand.26

Marxist animal abolitionism therefore comprises the abolition of animal exploitation not through individual initiatives but through the end of private ownership of the means of production and their rational reorganization — at which time animals could be removed from the production relations with no harm to our own kind. However, while Marxism criticizes the overestimation of individual initiative by bourgeois liberal conceptions of the world, the revolutionary daily practice cannot be turned into a caricature, as Lukács reiterates.27 In this sense, “veganism is part of a revolutionary perspective”, Angela Davis affirms,28 and it is also important for the exercise of solidarity and denaturalization of oppressive practices by the working class. Furthermore, the issue of animal products is not just a matter of consumption, as such products are problematic in themselves due to the inherent violence involved in their production, regardless of the political and economic system in which it occurs.

Besides, fruitful debates and dialogues can be generated among the working class with concrete examples that it is possible to live in a dignified way without violating any animals. It is not the role of Marxists to soften the perception of the conflict between the capitalist mode of production and the welfare of humans, other animals and the natural environment. On the contrary, it is by highlighting and elucidating these conflicts and their everyday perception that working people turn to themselves. If animals are not part of our class because they are not humans, they are not part of the ruling class either, and they have much more in common with us than with them, whether that is in terms of exploitation, freedom deprivation or commoditization. The communist morality, as a development of the proletarian morality envisioned by Engels,29 can only be built on the rejection of all forms of oppression.30 Thus, considering the present relations of production, we must reject animal exploitation, incorporating the struggle for their liberation into the struggle for human emancipation, since there is no justification, other than bourgeois moralism, for the industrial application of suffering on animals.

Because animals lack the ability to enjoy freedom in the Marxist – political – sense, they cannot contribute to the social relations of production, and because they are sentient, they should not be treated as mere objects of human labour. They can, however, enjoy the freedom of nature, which is their fundamental right, as natural beings. The commitment of revolutionary praxis is to build the new and not to worship the traditions based on oppression. As Marx wrote in his youth, quoting Thomas Müntzer: “the creatures, too, must become free”.31

Originally published in Lavra Palavra (in Portuguese):

O Marxismo e a Questão Animal

Banner Image: “Evolution of Revolution”, by Hartmut Kiewert, 2013

Thank you for visiting our animal defence section. Before leaving, please take a moment to reflect on these mind-numbing institutionalized cruelties.
The wheels of business and human food compulsions—often exacerbated by reactionary creeds— are implacable and totally lacking in compassion. This is a downed cow, badly hurt, but still being dragged to slaughter. Click on this image to fully appreciate this horror repeated millions of times every day around the world. With plentiful non-animal meat substitutes that fool the palate, there is no longer reason for this senseless suffering. And meat consumption is a serious ecoanimal crime. The tyranny of the palate must be broken. Please consider changing your habits and those around you in this regard.


[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]





Murdoch under fire over climate ‘denial’ stance

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


The ecoanimal apocalypse in Australia—long foreseen but swept under the rug or actively denied by the establishment politicos and media—with Murdoch's properties leading the charge in the climate denialist camp, has now caused, at last, an angry awakening that is quickly sprouting a more combative stance and defiant tactics among the public. We earnestly hope the lessons learned by the Australian population at such ghastly cost will illumine the path of liberation from the claws of capitalism. It is high time the public viewed these rotten politicians and sociopathic media owners and their hirelings for the criminals they are, and seek and execute the kind of cathartic punishment they so richly deserve. Australia and the world urgently need structural changes, not just crowd-placating reforms.


Media mogul’s son James joins a growing chorus criticizing News Corp’s approach to climate change

[dropcap]A[/dropcap]s resentment grows in Australia over the Rupert Murdoch-controlled media’s coverage of climate change and links to the bushfires ravaging the country, one of his sons has also spoken out and criticized the coverage.

Rupert Murdoch—media baron. In just one lifetime, Murdoch has caused the extinction of more lives and general suffering than Hitler. He has also damaged the planet possibly irreparably. He is certainly a new, unprecedented, type of mass murderer—a killer that simply uses the tools of modern propaganda.

Murdoch’s younger son James has called out his father’s media empire for “denial” of climate change, calling it a disappointment in light of wildfires in Australia, a report said Tuesday.

The Daily Beast reported that James Murdoch and his activist wife Kathryn had harsh words for his family’s company, which operates US-based Fox News as well as newspapers in the US, Britain and Murdoch’s native Australia through its News Corp.

“Kathryn and James’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” the report quoted a spokesperson for the couple as saying.

“They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.”

James Murdoch has largely disengaged from the media empire built by his father, which began with a newspaper group in Australia.

He has launched his own private holding company called Lupa Systems, which among other things has taken a stake in Vice Media.

The family rebuke comes amid raging bushfires in Australia that have killed at least 27 people, destroyed more than 2,000 homes and burned 10 million hectares, or 100,000 square kilometers, of land – an area larger than South Korea or Portugal. [Not to mention burned alive upwards of half a billion animals, many belonging to unique, precious species—Ed)

The Murdoch family’s News Corp Australia publishes eight of the top 10 newspapers in the country and operates the 24-hour multi-platform Sky News Australia.

One of Murdoch’s employees in Sydney accused the organization of a “misinformation campaign” filled with “irresponsible” and “dangerous” coverage of the bushfire crisis, urging executive chairman Michael Miller to think about the “big picture,” according to the Sydney Morning Herald.

“I have been severely impacted by the coverage of News Corp publications in relation to the fires, in particular the misinformation campaign that has tried to divert attention away from the real issue which is climate change to rather focus on arson (including misrepresenting facts),” said News Corp’s commercial finance manager Emily Townsend.

Environmentalists in Australia have also taken to social media and called for boycotts on Murdoch’s publications, particularly The Australian newspaper. Large numbers of people are believed to have canceled their subscriptions to The Australian and other Murdoch papers.

With reporting from AFP



[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.





And before you leave

THE DEEP STATE IS CLOSING IN

The big social media —Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter—are trying to silence us.




California Bans Fur! Biggest Victory for Animals in 50 Years!

UNEXAMINED TRADITIONS & THE CAPITALIST WAY OF LIFE HAVE BROUGHT US TO THIS PRECIPICE

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


The fur trade and "furriers" is one of the oldest human activities, classified as "predatory extractions". Early American capitalists built fortunes on the fur trade, and even wars were instigated directly or indirectly for the control of this "resource" (the aseptic way of hiding the true nature of this activity).  America's first "great fortune"—the Astors—originated in the matyrdom of countless animals:

New York City.

Born in Germany, Astor immigrated to England as a teenager and worked as a musical instrument manufacturer. He moved to the United States after the American Revolutionary War. He entered the fur trade and built a monopoly, managing a business empire that extended to the Great Lakes region and Canada, and later expanded into the American West and Pacific coast. Seeing the decline of demand, he got out of the fur trade in 1830, diversifying by investing in New York City real estate and later becoming a famed patron of the arts.[2]

He was the first prominent member of the Astor family and the first multi-millionaire in the United States.

Today, the fur trade involves, as usual, horrendous practices, including inhumane caging, anal electrocution, neckbreaking (minks and similar species), skinning alive (raccoon dogs in China, for example), stomping alive, and drowning in underwater traps. With the rapid development of so many alternatives using "real fur" is now a strictly moral choices, except for populations that really need to depend on animal resources, such as the Inuit in polar regions. Overall, in any urban setting, the use of animal fur is basically a vanity question. 


Gov Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 44 into Law! The California Fur Ban!

This is the most important piece of state legislation for animals in history. And is likely second only to the federal Animal Protection Act in term of its importance!

No new fur products will be able to be sold in California after 2022!

The effect of the ban will be to close furriers, force major retailers to stop buying products with fur trim, force manufacturers to produce separate lines for California or abandon fur themselves in all their markets. It will put a substantial dent in imports from China, many of which are dog and cat fur.

As the world’s 5th largest economy, California is positioned to use it’s considerable influence and economic power to impact markets and governments around the world.

We can expect to see other states and countries follow California’s lead.

And California’s Democrats have demonstated that with control of both legislative houses and the governor’s chair, they can change the world!

Here is the link to the CBS report on the governor’s actions today: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-becomes-first-state-to-ban-the-sale-and-manufacture-of-new-fur-products-ab44-today-2019-10-12/


Thank you for visiting our animal defence section. Before leaving, please join us in a moment of compassion and reflection.

The wheels of business and human food compulsion are implacable and totally lacking in compassion. This is a downed cow, badly hurt, but still being dragged to slaughter. Globally, the human tyranny over animals takes over a trillion creatures each year, a truly mind-boggling figure. With plentiful non-animal meat substitutes that fool the palate, there is no longer any need for this senseless suffering that is also killing the planet. Meat consumption is a serious ecoanimal crime. Please re-examine your habits in this regard.



[premium_newsticker id=”218306″]


The Russian Peace Threat examines Russophobia, American Exceptionalism and other urgent topics