Recently I came across a posting on Facebook that was accompanied by the shocking photo above, and several others like it. Do you see anything wrong? Look closely at the photo.

I mistakenly thought these dogs must be the product of the atrocities currently so prevalent in certain Islamic regimes, where dogs have been declared unfit to live. Street dogs are being captured and viciously tortured by teenage boys, with total impunity. I have previously come across a rescue group in Vancouver that is attempting rescue survivors and get as many of these sorely abused creatures out of the country as possible (albeit with limited success). The photo above is alarmingly similar to those I have seen illustrating the mutilations perpetrated upon the street dogs.

However, upon investigation, it became clear that the posting was from somebody transporting one of these puppies from Saskatchewan to BC. They are a breed little known in Canada, called an Alabai. This is a livestock guardian breed that originates in Central Asia.
 
There was a comment asking "Are the dog's ears naturally so small?" Somebody replied that both the tail and the ears had been docked. This, they said, was "traditional and very common". A little research confirmed that this definitely is the case. This poor breed get most of their tails hacked off and have virtually no ear flaps to speak of, after ‘standard practice’ has been performed upon them.

I considered this plain wrong. Not only is it some of the worst mutilation I’ve seen, but also, it took place in Saskatchewan, where docking for cosmetic purposes may not be carried out by vets (as laid out in point 33:6 of the provincial veterinary code of practice bylaws).

Sufficiently inflamed, I responded to the posting, stating that the practice of docking was not only unnecessary and cruel, but since it is forbidden in the province, the breeder must have performed the surgeries. (This is not uncommon in places where docking has been banned, and can provide a right of action for SPCA prosecution.)

The next response I got very forcefully let me know that there was nothing wrong with docking, and that a vet had indeed carried out the operations.

When I asked for the vet’s name, stating that I wanted to report them to the Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical Association for breaching their bylaws and perpetrating unnecessary acts of cruelty, they declined to give me the vet's details.

Frankly, all of this is nothing new. If you are a follower of my writings, then you may have a vague memory of my November 2015 blog entitled 'The Cruelest Cut of All?' My feelings about the subject haven't changed one iota, and there's not really a great deal to add from my perspective. 

What I find noteworthy/appalling about this situation was that at this point, all hell broke loose.

I found myself deluged by other FB users, variously telling me to mind my own business, that docking was fine, listing legitimisations for docking, using very abusive language to reply to me, calling me names, and being generally unpleasant and highly defensive about what I had written. One even called me a "f**king right wing vegan hippy"! (I had to laugh at that one. I asked them if they knew what 'right wing' meant, but got no reply!) Surprisingly, all the comments were from women. 

Well, if you know me, you will know what happened next. I am not inclined to back off about many things, and I certainly won't back down when dog welfare is the issue. I responded to each and every assault that came my way, until eventually, everyone went away, probably browbeaten by my stubborn temerity, rather than being persuaded by my arguments. I fielded the most ridiculous, inane and hollow arguments, politely and logically. I responded to the unwarranted abuse with questions and challenges to the individuals concerning their motivations, with no trace of rudeness. I did not lose my cool, give any ground, or stoop to the levels of my assailants. 

A number of things struck me about what transpired:

1. The rudeness of the responses to me were utterly disproportionate to what I was saying. The abuse was unnecessary and unpleasant. I had criticised a practice, not an individual; yet all of the responses included attacks on me personally.

Why do people feel that they need to attack, rather than debate or discuss? Is the whole of society becoming a nasty by-product of the Drumpf influence; or is he merely what society deserves, as a by-product of and mirror for itself? What is happening to basic issues of respect?

2. What does it say about us when we can’t tolerate other perspectives or accept the right of others to  their own beliefs or to challenge our views without bitter remonstration?  [But hold up, aren’t I being intolerant of other’s perspectives here? No. I’ve considered them, and I can still find no justification for their choices, Neither can the veterinary associations in BC, SK, MB, NB, NS, QB, and PEI. In NF and Labrador, there are provincial laws banning them!]  

3. When asked for justification/logic of why dogs should be docked, I got these three:
​

•  It’s traditional. (Isn't tradition just a load of bollocks if it merely serves to engender cruelty?)
• They’re livestock guardians. (Livestock guardians simply DON’T need docking. We have several , all undocked, and they’re fine.)
• "I had a dog that had whiptail". (If you have one dog that has suffered whiptail, does that automatically mean that all others should be mutilated, just in case? Oh please. Get real!)

Are people becoming incapable of exercising logic in their thinking and subsequent behaviours? Don't they critique their own arguments before coming out with spurious rhetoric and empty justifications? And are we losing the capacity for caring and the ability to empathise with the perspectives of others - in this case, a dog's?

4. If this is none of my business (as so many told me, straight) doesn't that basically infer that we should all ignore what is wrong, if we see it? How does change come about then? If we are to coexist, even within our own species, how is it possible if we all keep our views to ourselves? And how may we become as tolerant as we need to be if we resort to hurling abuse at others when we are challenged?

5. Because of the page I was on, I know that hundreds of people must have seen the conversations. Yet only one person ‘liked’ my point of view. It was this that left me most disappointed and reflective, hence this blog.  I don't mind the lack of support. That's fine. But I am quite certain there were those who saw what transpired who agreed with my perspective. Yet in all the dialogue that flew backwards and forwards, only one person was brave enough to 'like' my input, others probably fearing that they too would become the object of bullying assault. LOL. Social media really sucks!
​

So what would you have done? I guess not everyone is as impervious as I am to vilification. I guess most people prefer to not stick their heads above the parapet and risk the disapprobation of the masses. But when we see something that’s wrong, how is it ever going to change unless we draw attention to it?

I think situations like this cross our paths, if not daily, then regularly. Granted, you may not share my willingness to walk into a fight, and maybe in this case, you don’t see anything wrong at all. But when you do, will you ask yourself those timeless questions posed by Hillel?
 
“If not you, who? If not now, when?”



NB. The breeder did not declare that the dockings were done in Alberta. If they had been, this (to AB’s shame) would have been legal. But the breeder would have had to convey the whole litter 125 miles each way to get to a vet there. This was at no time used as a defence for her actions. Consequently, despite the refusal to name the vet, I reported the matter to the Saskatchewan Veterinary Medical Association.

They have replied and are taking the matter very seriously, promising me that they will look into it. 

A recent posting on a pro-vegan Facebook page showed pictures of ‘farmed animals’ (the exact ones shown above - I stole them!) eating, relaxing and generally being in repose in natural settings. The accompanying text simply said: “Living as they intended, having experiences without human exploitation.”

It was a pleasant, positive and inoffensive. Yet it prompted the following, somewhat defensive response, from one observer.

"Without human intervention not one of those species would exist. Furthermore without human stewardship none of them would continue to exist.

Cows, pigs, sheep, dogs, honey bees, and horses are the product of centuries of hybridization and selective breeding. Without humans none of them with the exception of some breeds of pigs, dogs and horses would survive the majority of the ecosystems they currently occupy. 

I find factory farming more disgusting than you could imagine and what people do to animals is absolutely deplorable. I care deeply for my animals and love having them around but in order for me to have them they need to be profitable and I'll go as far as saying my animals only have 1 bad day in their lives."

I find this a flawed, ill-considered and really, rather silly response, on so many levels. Allow me to dissect it:

As yet, humankind is not responsible for the creation of any species. The first DNA genome to be sequenced was in 1977, and in the 40+ years since (at least as far as has been shared with the general public), we have not gained enough technical capability to do any more with the knowledge than meddle with what nature creates. So whilst the author of the comments may perceive humanity as being somewhat godlike, to claim that “Without human intervention not one of those species would exist” is utter nonsense.

Isn’t it common knowledge that all animals have their origins in a wild or natural state, without intervention by us? They have indeed been “the product of centuries of hybridization and selective breeding”, often to their severe physical detriment. Yet he writes as if, through some great benevolence, we have done them a service. What is true is that our insatiable desire to change other living beings has arrived at the point where meddling with dog breeding for appearance sake, is recognised to have caused life threatening genetic disorders in at least a dozen popular breeds. Similar interference with (for instance) certain fowls, renders them ideal for consumption, but unable to even move as was intended. Where’s the favour there? Our 'domestication' of previously wild creatures has been solely for our benefit.

To claim that none of them would continue to exist is not only unfounded, but farcical. There is no evidence to support this belief (if only because livestock is considered too valuable to be left to its own devices). Granted, many animals are by no means in their natural ecosystems and would suffer hardship if abandoned by their human feeders. But does the writer not know that nature adapts? It finds a way. There are countless examples of creatures living in the harshest of habitats that have evolved to cope with what they face. Does he not know that pigs will revert happily to a wild foraging existence within a generation? Does he not know that horses are still naturally wild creatures that have to be ‘broken’; or that tens of thousands still live without any human interference in the US alone? Is he not aware that dogs can survive by catching their own food or scavenging? If animals like cows and sheep cannot adapt, it would only be because we have robbed them of their ability to do so, and put them in places where they shouldn’t be. And as for bees. Are there no other bees than those that live in hives? Oh please! If that’s the case, we’re all going to be in a lot of trouble very soon.

If his first two paragraphs demonstrate a curious degree of thoughtlessness, or even ignorance, the final paragraph reveals something else entirely. It’s great that the writer finds factory farming deplorable. It is. It’s vile. Clearly this individual is one of the ‘old school’ farmers, and if there is an acceptable face to farming, this is surely it. But the point of the posting that sparked his comments, is to highlight the fact that to those who have eschewed carnism because they value animal lives, there simply is no acceptable face to animal farming. So why leap in to contradict that and make unfounded claims? Could it be that at the crux of the matter is a self-serving delusion, which this individual obviously finds it necessary to perpetrate upon himself...

He claims to “care deeply for my animals and love having them around”, but it’s a funny sort of love that will allow us to slaughter something that we genuinely feel something for, with good conscience. This speaks of love in the same way that one might love going on a rollercoaster ride, or going outside for a picnic on a summer’s day. It’s an abstract, uninvolved kind of love, that doesn’t involve connecting emotionally with another sentient being. If we are truly engaged in loving and caring for a creature, how can we bear to bring about its end, unless it is an act of mercy?

Is herding your gentle and harmless cattle, in a state of blind fear and desperation, into a truck that reeks of despair, before sending them on a potentially long and highly traumatic journey, where they will arrive at a soulless building exuding the vibration and sounds of death, where they must wait agonisingly in line, terrified, amidst the screams of those they love and the inner sounds of their own dread, until uncaring (and maybe despicably cruel) individuals hoist them upside down, tearing their bones and sinews, before brutally stunning them and callously slit their throats, (and all this whilst they may still be partially conscious and aware of everything that is going on around them) a caring and loving thing to do?

Is it?

Maybe this person does their own slaughtering, so the herding and the journey bit can be cut out, and the stunning and having your throat slit bit is done by a kind person who loves you.

Really? REALLY?

Our commentator says: “I'll go as far as saying my animals only have 1 bad day in their lives.”

Well, from my perspective, if what is described above is the worst day of your life, that might just trump any joy that comes in the (for beef cattle) 18 months of life that you’ve been allowed, out of your potential 20-year lifespan. And the fact that you've been robbed of the remaining 92.5% of your life that was still to come? Who could complain about that?

This writer needs a dose of 'get real'. The most truthful and telling phrase in his exposition is:

“…in order for me to have them they need to be profitable”.

That is the justification for everything, isn’t it?

I get that farmers need to make a living. I get that not all farmers live in places where growing crops is an option. I get that there's a demand for meat. I get that while the demand exists, somebody's going to fill it. I get that this guy is one of these people. I get that he doesn't want to associate himself with the evils for factory farming methodologies. I get that he thinks he's taking the kinder option.

But here’s what he needs to get.

• You don’t have to have these animals.
• You can make a living another way.
• You’ve chosen this.
• You’ve chosen to keep animals to make a profit from their lives.
• You’ve decided their lives are yours to do with as you please.
• You believe that you have some God-given right to make money out of their suffering and death, even if it is only for that one “bad day”.
• You’ve decided it’s O.K. for the suffering of other creatures to line your pockets.
• When you write as if you’re doing them a big favour by keeping them alive and enabling them to survive as a result of your munificence, you are deluding yourself.
• You are not helping them.
• You are using them, plain and simple.
• You look after them because it serves your interests to do so
• At the end of the day, their lives will put coins in your pocket.

When people put up postings suggesting that animals have a right to their lives, they're not wrong just because you make a living from those lives. If you need vacuous justification to assuage your conscience, maybe somewhere inside you know it’s wrong. Maybe one day, you’ll get to the point where the knowledge of what you send these poor animals to will bear so heavily upon your soul that you’ll give it up.
​
I hope it’s soon. For their sake.

Readers of my books will be familiar with my contempt for those who welcome a dog into their home, only to cast it off at some point like so much unwanted dead hair.
 
But there are genuine and heartrending reasons for having to part with a beloved pet that leave their owners distraught and heartbroken.
 
In the midst of what may be a devastating experience, it is all too easy to forget some essential steps that need to be taken to protect your dog; as well as preserve your personal integrity.
 
What follows is my guide to how to get it right:
 
CALLING UPON THOSE YOU TRUST
 
Reaching out to friends can seem like the most obvious thing to do when trying to find a new home for a dog. Knowing your dog will be going to someone you trust, someone who knows the animal, and whose circumstances you believe you are aware of, may seem like a comforting option for new ownership. But even then, it is vital to ask yourself some testing questions about your friends in order to ensure your pet is going to a safe and happy future:

Do you have evidence that they already love the dog?
 
When your friends have met your dog, have they been effusive and loving, or merely accepting?  You surely want someone who will focus upon the dog and cherish it as their own family member; not somebody who is doing you a favour because of your friendship?

Are they dog owners, or are they real dog lovers?
 
I wrote a blog about this one some years ago (Dog Owners VS. Dog Lovers) There are a lot of people who are almost perfunctory dog owners; and there are those who adore their dogs. Which you are will have determined your dog’s expectations. Is the person you are intending to rehome your dog with the same as you?
 
Do they have enough time to look after the dog properly?
 
Your dog wants/needs someone who will be able to give your dog at least as much time as you did; hopefully more. The dog will already have an expectation level based upon their experience with you, and if they get less time with their new person, it will be a hardship for them. 

Will the dog be left alone for long periods of time?
 
For all the reasons above, be very careful with this one. This is particularly the case if your dog has lived with other pets and is used to constant companionship. Anxieties and feelings of abandonment can easily surface if they are left for longer than was previously the case.

Will the dog have companionship?
 
If your dog has lived with a companion, think very carefully before you allow it to go to a home where it will no longer have one. The loss of it can result in undesirable behavioural responses.
 
(NB. If your dog is one of a bonded pair, even though your circumstances may allow you to keep one, it is tantamount to an act of cruelty to separate them. If you really care about your dogs, rehome them together. Breaking up can cause dogs untold agonies, and even result in premature death.)

What other animals (of any kind) do they have in the household; and will your dog get on with them?
 
This may seem rather obvious, but it’s crucial. Too many rehomings fail because the new owners discover that their existing pets do not get on with the new dog. Guess which one gets slung out?  At the very least, you should make arrangements that if things don’t work out, you will be the one who will take the dog back and work on its next rehoming. If anything else happens, things will get majorly traumatic for your dog.

Can they afford the dog's upkeep?
 
This is a brutal but necessary question. It’s all very well if someone loves a dog, but can they actually provide for it. It’s not just a matter of food, but sundry costs and vet bills. Will your friend put the needs of the dog before their own, like you would?

What type of environment will your dog be going to?
 
Let’s not pretend about this one. Dogs love the outdoors, and the countryside is infinitely more appealing to them than an urban environment. They may get used to the latter, but if your rehoming choice is going to take them from the rural to the urban, they’re simply not going to be happy about it.

Do they have a fully fenced yard?
 
If your dog is used to a large yard and a safe environment to play, apartment living, will totally suck. And a smaller contained area than they are used to may well create the desire to seek out larger spaces. A place where a dog is safe should be high on anyone’s list of criteria.

What will the dog be fed?
 
If they won’t get the food they’re used to in their new home, this will be potentially upsetting and difficult for them, at least in the short term. Slightly more importantly, if your dog is used to a raw food diet, you are probably aware of the shortcomings of kibble. To make a transfer to it is unacceptable.

Will the dog get enough exercise?
 
Again, this is an area of pre-existing expectation. If a dog has been regularly walked and exercised, anything less can lead to depression and other undesirable changes in temperament.

Will that person give your dog time to adjust?
 
Make no mistake, if your dog was happy with you, it is about to be immersed to a (temporary) world of confusion, upset and possibly, grieving. A significant percentage of rehomings fail within the first few weeks because new owners are not prepared to give dogs time to adjust or accept what they consider ‘behavioural anomalies’. These might not happen, but is your friend the sort of individual who will be tolerant of things that fail to meet their expectations?

 
Of course, these questions need not be asked directly of your friends. You can answer them yourself if you know the person well enough.
 
In doing so, you need to exercise a (possibly) alarming degree of honesty with yourself about the situation your pet will face.
 
Do not let yourself be seduced by the convenience of finding a home quickly. If you really care, you want your dog to go somewhere where they will be valued and loved with the same strength of feeling that you offered them.
 
Don’t short change your dog and settle for a sub-optimum situation just because it seems expedient. Be idealistic and even try to find a better situation than you were able to offer. Don’t let ego get in the way!
 
Friends or those we know seem like a good option for rehoming for your dog. But it must be noted that if you knew somebody who fit the bill, if they really wanted your pet, they’d probably have stepped forward and volunteered a home as soon as they were aware of your predicament, without being asked.
 
If you have to ask them, be absolutely sure that if they say “yes”, it isn’t just because they feel obliged to.
 
​
CASTING YOUR NET FURTHER AFIELD

The chances are, you may well have to go beyond your immediate circle of friends. This certainly heightens your chances of getting a great home, but it also has pitfalls.
 
Here are some points to consider:

Keep your activities within your control
 
At such a stressful and upsetting time, it’s easy to want to accept all the help you can get. However, allowing somebody to act on your behalf, when it’s not made wholly clear that they are not the owner, can lead to confusion and bad feelings. Nobody can give an account of your dog like you, so it is not advisable to let anybody act as your agent, or speak for you. They may empathise totally with what you are going through, but they may inadvertently cause great confusion with potential new owners, even leading them to feel misled or deceived.  

Be careful of somebody who knows somebody
 
If friends can’t directly help you, they may often know others who can. However, under no circumstances should you assume that the (hopefully ultra-careful) criteria you are applying in selecting a suitable new home will be shared by your friends. It is important that if you know somebody who knows somebody, that you do not give the third parties any quarter in your subsequent assessment of them as owners for your pet. Trusting is folly, unless the person you trust is someone who is already intimately involved in dog rescue and knows not only the third party’s circumstances, but also has a detailed awareness of the problems that can beset rehomings. And even then, check them out for yourself to be sure.

Using social media
 
Whilst social media makes finding a potential new home infinitely easier than in days gone by, it also opens up risk that needs to be mitigated, as outlined below. But even if this were not the case, when lots of people see a posting, be aware that many will fall in love with a picture and respond unthinkingly, on impulse. You are as likely to get as many time wasters as you are genuinely interested parties using this route. If you accept and expect that many of those who say “I would love to help” won’t actually be able to/really want to, you probably won’t be disappointed.

Set expectations
 
If you’re going to place a ‘home sought’ plea, be very careful about the words you use. Above all else, you must be honest about the dog. If it is problematic, has issues, has previously caused problems, or is ‘trouble’ in any way, tell potential owners up front. Don’t fall into the trap of imagining that if you conceal it, everything will be alright when they find out later. Many rehomed dogs are summarily ejected from their new homes because new owners are taken by surprise. This can put them off offering other dogs a home in the future and does your own pet no favours. It is far more likely to end up in dire straits this way, than if you had told the truth in the first place. Not only will honesty help sort out the serious from the frivolous enquirers, you may uncover homes where people are prepared to deal with issues, or have the experience to cope with them. They will accept the dog for what it is, having not been attracted to a disingenuous and idealised version of your pet.

Avoid Kijiji and Craigslist
 
Any of the well-known buy/sell sites on the internet attract huge numbers of visitors. They seem like the obvious places to post an advertisement for rehoming a dog. But more than any other type of sites, they will attract casual opportunists, who are looking for a quick and easy fix for a shortfall they feel they have in their lives. Most insidious of all are the predators who stalk such sites, looking for bait dogs for dog fighting rings. If you are not aware of such things, be aware that they are very real and a growing travesty.

Posting on other people’s pages
 
There are many independent rescues and individuals that maintain Facebook or other social media sites about dogs. Some may appear to allow posting upon their pages. However, they may do so inadvertently, because their regulators are not knowledgeable enough about security settings to stop this. Just because you can add your listing, it doesn’t mean that you should! It is highly discourteous to simply post a dog without seeking permission first. An organisation that feels it will be able to help will be only too willing to assist in a posting that meets their standards. They will likely be very helpful to you if approached respectfully, and even have opportunities for rehoming you would not otherwise have come across.

Keeping an open mind
 
Advertising on the internet will expose you and your dog to all sorts of people whose situations and circumstances may previously have been beyond your imagination. It is important to keep an open mind and not assume too much, lest you miss opportunities for your dog that are outside your scope of experience, but nonetheless present opportunities for an exciting and rewarding life for them.

Working with rescue groups
 
Even if you are not physically surrendering your dog to a rescue, by far the best thing to do (and a much safer option) is to work with a local rescue group to find the right home for your pet. Not only will they be only too aware of all of the pitfalls of social media, they will likely have a good knowledge of the local situation, and the circumstances of many of those who might offer a home. They may also know those are actively looking for pets. And you can guarantee that their standards will be very high. They are the last people who would want to place a dog in further jeopardy.
 
​
None of this should put you off using social media. It is a direct and powerful method of finding a good home. But the seeming speed with which it may occur is no substitute for the overriding need to protect your dog, which can only be achieved if you do proper due diligence on your potential new owners. 
 

DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE
 
If you are lucky enough to receive offers of support from numerous sources, it is very important to not go with the first seemingly good situation, and be thorough in your research of the home your pet will go to.
 
Having sorted the ‘wheat from the chaff’, as a minimum this should include:
 
Interviewing 

Speak at length with the person to establish their circumstances and motivation. What do your instincts tell you about the person? Have in front of you a list of the questions posed in the first section, and be sure that you get answers to all of them, so that you may reach a reasoned and well informed decision later on.

Gather substantive evidence about suitability
 
Insist on getting the following references:

• Vet references (If they have/have previously had pets)
• Personal references (At least three people who will testify to the type of home they will offer and what sort of life your dog can expect)

 Also consider:

• Police references. (If this seems extreme to you, ask yourself why not? When people apply adopt children, it’s the first thing that’s taken. Too many people who have been banned from keeping animals or who have a history of abuse use rehomings as a way of getting animals. Yes, it will cost them to get a reference, but if they’re keen enough…  

​(The only exception to this should be if the person is able to provide references from a dog rescue, who will likely already have pre-qualified and have extensive knowledge of them.)
 
Make sure that you get:

• Information about the type of home your dog is going to. If you can’t actually visit, ask them to send photos of both the interior and exterior. Better still, ask for video footage.
• Assurances about where the dog will be sleeping.
• Awareness about the potential owner’s day-to-day habits. Some, such as smoking in a home, can damage dogs as well as humans.

 
Do not be afraid to ask for these things. It’s not an imposition. If they’re really serious about taking your dog, and if they are really caring people, they will not mind at all. In fact, they’ll be only too pleased to provide you with evidence that they will care for your dog.
 
Breed knowledge

Some people rehoming request that new owners have experience of the breed being adopted. This is not strictly necessary, but it is a good idea to find our whether or not the person is familiar with any breed characteristics or peculiarities. In interviewing them, don’t give it all away. Find out what they really know and what research they’ve done about your type of dog. 

If they have previously owned your breed and no longer do, why is this the case? Be aware that many people with previous experience of one breed have switched to another for good reasons. Yet it may be sentimentality causes them to abandon their reasoning and offer a home to another.
 
 Size awareness

Bear in mind that with dogs, size does matter. If a person has only had small dogs, and yours is a large or giant breed (or vice versa), what differences do they expect? Are they prepared for what challenges they will face?
 

TO CHARGE OR NOT TO CHARGE
 
Mention the words ‘free to a good home’ and don’t expect anything good to come of it. A dog that is free is all too easily regarded as dispensable later on.
 
However, if you seek a truly good home for your dog, it’s a good idea to be flexible about whether you charge. Trying to ‘recoup your losses’ is an extraordinary act of thoughtlessness when your pet’s welfare should be your primary consideration.
 
This must be decided circumstantially. Not wanting to pay is not automatically a sign of a less-than-ideal home.
 

MAKING A COMMITMENT
 
Deciding where your dog should go should not be rushed. Due diligence alone can take a considerable time. You may feel a sense of urgency, but don’t forget that your dog’s future depends upon the decisions you make now; if you make the wrong choice, the cost will be to them. Some dogs go through multiple homes, just because people do not follow the guidelines set out above.

If you have any doubts about a home, the chances are you're making the wrong decision. Everything should feel right about your choice, as much for your sake as your dog's. If you are making a sub-optimal choice for the sake of expediency, be honest with yourself about it, and if necessary start all over again.

If, before you finally hand your dog over, you have second thoughts, don't go through with it. You will regret it.
 

 SHOW YOUR GRATITUDE
 
There is little that is more disheartening for a potential adopter than to come across a request for help, respond to it, then be ignored; or involved initially, then be left out of the loop in the final decision.
 
If you have gone the social media route, it is important to thank everyone who showed interest, irrespective of how many there may be. A few seconds of your time to express your gratitude for their offers of help, irrespective of whether you regarded them as time wasters, will retain their goodwill and willingness to offer their home to other needy dogs in the future.
 
LETTING GO
  
When you have finally found the right home for your beloved dog, if you have taken all of the steps outlined above, you may rest assured that you are one of the exceptional ones.  
 
You may mourn your pet’s loss, but try not to be too hard on yourself. Take comfort in the knowledge that by not taking short cuts, or doing what was simply expedient for you, you have demonstrated that you truly cared, and did everything possible to protect them. You have done your best to ensure their future happiness and wellbeing.
 
 
Will following all of these guidelines make your life harder? Will it mean that the process of rehoming may take infinitely longer?

The answers is a big “YES” to both questions.
 
But if you’re not deceiving yourself, and you truly love the dog you are having to give up, it’s the least you can do for them. If you don't have the time to do all of these things, make time. If you can't find the 'right' home within  the time frame you need, the dog is better temporarily placed in a kennel or foster home, than in a rushed decision 'wrong' home.
 
And all of the above is probably the bare minimum necessary to give you real peace of mind.

​I have come across several people now who eschew eating meat… unless it’s come from farms that practice ‘humane methods’. It’s a growing trend in Europe, where producers are rapidly wising up to the fact that out-and-out despicable treatment of your livestock simply isn’t good for business.

Meat packaging that is labelled ‘humanely reared’ (or some other such glib phase) has been on the rise since 2003, and now it’s taking on a life of its own. So it didn’t come as much of a surprise to me today when Sharon sent me an article about Harry Street, an 'RSPCA assured' UK veal farmer who runs Harry Street Meats, a small family business. She knew it was basically a case of ‘light touch paper and retire’

Harry Street (pictured above) rears beef, lamb, turkeys and veal - all ‘naturally grown’.  The ‘meats‘ are reared on Harry’s farm so he controls exactly where they come from and how they've been produced - allowing the consumer to buy with confidence. He places the welfare of his animals is his top priority. “If our livestock are happy, we are happy - it's that simple” Harry says.

Even better, the farm is RSPCA and Red Tractor (the UK’s biggest farm/food standards accreditation scheme) assured. This means that the public can guarantee that the way the animals are reared, transported and slaughtered is in line with welfare standards. Harry declares he is “a passionate advocate for animal welfare in the UK”.

What a great chap, eh?

Harry is on the crest of the rising wave of benevolent farmers who make the welfare of their livestock their top priority, ensuring that they are well cared for, housed and given space.

(Of course, this is before they are carted off to be murdered and deprived of the lives they treasured.)

It’s a good wicket for Harry to be on, because people in the UK are becoming increasingly aware about animal suffering and as a nation of supposed animal lovers, want it to stop. If the trend continues, kindly farmers like Harry are on the up-and-up, and cruel bastards who mistreat their animals are eventually going to have to adapt or be forced out of business.

(Of course, slaughtering constitutes neither suffering nor mistreatment.)

It’s a good thing for Harry that the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals in involved, because being RSPCA ‘assured’ means that the consumer will know that Harry is really serious about making sure that his livestock has not been cruelly treated.

(Of course, killing an animal long before its natural lifespan is up is not cruel at all; so a society that is there to protect animals from cruelty doesn't have to prevent their deaths. That would be silly, wouldn't it?)

It’s wonderful that if Harry’s animals are happy, then he is too.

(Of course, they may not be happy when they’re being dragged away to be dismembered. One may wonder if Harry can still be happy then?)

​Did you spot what complete, utter BULLSHIT this is?

Did you spot the irony of Harry claiming to be a passionate advocate for animal welfare, and yet be directly responsible for their killing?

Did you notice that Harry’s motivations may well be totally self-serving because more and more food stores will be wanting to sell the humanely treated meat he’s rearing?

Did you get fooled for one moment by the attempt made to salve the public’s conscience and have them feel O.K. about eating meat because, hey, the animals had a good life before we offed them, didn’t they?!

Did you feel sickened by the insidious double standards we are not only allowing, but choosing to find acceptable, because they allow us the comfortable self-deception that theriocide is O.K.?

Did you see the total hypocrisy of pretending that anyone really cares about the welfare of these animals, while they are still eating them?

Harry says: “My cows, like other animals farmed under the RSPCA Assured label, have a good life.”

Really?

'Good’ may mean free from abuse and availed of half-decent living space, but it has nothing to do with living a natural life, certainly not in respect of longevity. Even ‘decent farmers’ like Harry curtail animal lives as follows:

NB. This table shows the natural life spans that may be expected by these animals. This has been impacted by unnatural growth rates that have come about as a result of breeding practices that have shortened lives. (particularly in reference to turkeys and chickens, which can actually live up to 15 years. Sheep may also live to 20 years.)

Dairy cow (male) refers to males born on dairy farms where they have no value. If they were allowed to live, they would deprive us of their mother’s milk, and because of our apparent need for bovine growth hormones, they are brutally killed, buried alive or left to die. (I can send you photos on request.)
​
Chickens (eggs – male) refers to males hatched on egg farms where they have no value. As soon as they are old enough for their sex to be identified, they are literally ground up alive. (Again, I can send you photos/videos on request.)

Averaged out, farm animals get to live out 9% of their natural lives.

If you think that the dairy cows, mothering sows and laying chickens are doing comparatively well, do bear in mind that almost their whole lives are spent as food factories for humans. Throughout their existence they are forced to give birth, and their offspring are taken from them. They suffer huge emotional distress (I can send you those photos) and physical hardship throughout, and their ultimate reward is that they are ruthlessly slaughtered, like every other farmed animal.

This sort of information isn’t too palatable for a consumer who is prone to empathising and not bordering on psychopathy (see previous blog). In the article, to make the reader feel better, Harry described just what a good life his veal calves lead:

“When my calves arrive on farm at less than three weeks old they can weigh just 50 kilograms and six months later as much as 300 kilograms.  So giving them plenty of space to move around and grow is really important too. Just like a bunch of kids they need things to do like bales of straw to kick around. I play the radio for them too – they love listening to Chris Evans and Jeremy Vine! (UK DJs) And like growing kids they also need a healthy diet. My calves are fed a high protein milk diet for the first 10 weeks and then they are fed on special cakes, rich in iron and fibre, and straw to keep them healthy.”

Gosh, what a fabulous life they must have! Doesn’t it sound like fun, all that straw and all sorts of special treats?

Funny that he doesn’t say that the 300 kilograms they’ll weigh at six months is the last that they’ll weigh, because that’s when they’re slaughtered. I guess those special cakes really make up for the 97% of their lives that they never get to live out, and make them happy, so that Harry will be happy too!

But they will have had a good time listening to all of that music and witty banter from the radio I guess. After all, since the ban on veal crates was introduced to the UK in January 2007, calves up to eight weeks old may be kept in individual pens, where they can turn around and be in contact with other calves! After this, they are reared in groups of up to 80 calves, often in sheds with a wooden slatted floor. It must be just like a party.

​​Let’s not pretend about this.

​‘Humane’ farming may be infinitely better than some of the barbaric methods being practiced elsewhere, but it’s still a nonsense. Why? Because its ultimate outcome is always slaughter, and humane slaughter is an oxymoron. 

Even if we give Harry the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he may be well-intended, and not just a savvy individual who intends to be a wealthy farmer, if he really is a ‘passionate advocate for animal welfare’, why is he raising animals for slaughter in the first place? Wouldn’t he be running a farm animal sanctuary instead and using somewhat more meaningful methods to advocate that we care about them as much as he claims to?

It probably doesn’t pay so well…

​So have a good look at the picture of Harry with the cow in the photo. Look at the gentle trusting creature, and then think about the betrayal that’s to come.

But Harry’s not the real villain, is he? He’s just someone who hasn’t yet reached the point where he allows himself to accept that he’s the one who’s exploiting the harmless creatures he claims to care about so much.  

The real villains are those who make their dietary decisions based upon habit, tradition and convenience. It’s all those people out there who won’t stop eating meat that make somebody who does what Harry’s doing look like the good guy. 

​When the nation of supposed animal lovers wakes up and makes the connection that their foods are animals too, who are also worthy of being loved, only then will things will really start to change for the animals. 

NB. If some of the phraseology in this blog confuses you, it may be because some of it is very English. Being 'on a good wicket' means you're onto a good thing; and 'light touch paper and retire' is what used to be written on the box as instructions for setting off fireworks in the UK.

​And if you don't know what theriocide is, you're not keeping up with my blogs!

The following letter (and photo) was published in the UK's Guardian newspaper on 4th March 2017, under the title A Letter To... My Daughter Who Hates Me For Not Being Vegan. Below it is the response I sent to the Guardian.

(NB. If you're looking for a blog that has a green picture, and is seemingly about empathy, it's below this one. This is a very rare second blog, written on the same day as the one you seek!)


When you told me you had decided to become a vegan, I was worried. You had always been a fussy eater and I feared that, with such a limited diet, you wouldn’t get the nutrition you needed.

But you were over 18, so it was your choice. In addition, you did begin to eat more fruit and vegetables and tried to include the right food and supplements in your diet, so I was, at least partly, appeased.

You said your motivation was animal welfare and the environmental damage caused by agriculture. Fair enough.

With a younger child and a full-time job, I found it a challenge to research and cook meals for you, but I took it on board. And when you left home for university, I made sure the car was packed with homemade vegan soup for your freezer.

But it is not enough for you that I accommodate your choice. As you have explained many times, for you, veganism is not just about what you eat – it’s a lifestyle. You have watched all the pro-vegan documentaries, read mountains of information on the internet and can effortlessly reel off the soundbites. You have become passionate about the cause to the point of dogma. You will not tolerate any opposing view. Crucially, you can no longer respect anyone who is not persuaded to go vegan. And that means me.

I am open to at least some of your arguments and have made changes to my diet on account of information you have passed on to me about farmed animals. But, as a middle-aged woman, my choices in life are narrowing and will continue to narrow. I have no intention of limiting those choices further by going vegan. In your eyes, that just makes me selfish.

When we meet, I take you to vegan restaurants and embrace the choices available. I send you vegan recipes and seek out vegan chocolate for you in the supermarket. I know that you appreciate my efforts, but I also know that I will always fall short. I have stopped even trying to explain my reasons for not going vegan as it just ends up with both of us getting upset.

There is an uncomfortable contradiction for me in all of this – I have brought you up to be a strong, powerful, compassionate young woman. I would expect you to be passionate about what you believe in. I have taught you that tolerance is vital, but that there is a point when a line is crossed and certain behaviour cannot be tolerated. So I really can understand, in part, your attitude.

But I can’t tell you how hard it is to live with the knowledge that my own daughter is sickened by me. It is so important to me to feel worthy of your respect.

I hope that, in time and with maturity, dogma may give way to a more open attitude. But my fear is that, while you may mellow in how outspoken you are about veganism, your revulsion of me will remain vivid.

And I will just have to live with that.

Anonymous

​Dear Anonymous,
 
I read your letter to your daughter with great interest. I can only imagine how truly disheartening it must be to experience the disdain of one you care for so greatly.
 
Doubtless, your letter does not reveal all that has passed between you and your daughter. Likely, there is a great deal more to the situation than meets the eye. But from what you have chosen to reveal and share, I would make the following observations:
 
You have chosen to paint yourself as the victim of your daughter’s disapprobation, and she as the progenitor of your woes. Yet by your own estimation, she has presented you with reasoned arguments for her choices. You, on the other hand, offer no explanation for the reasons behind your dismissal of those choices (which you offhandedly scorn as ‘soundbites’), other than to describe yourself as a ‘middle-aged woman’ with ‘ever narrowing choices’.
 
If your (inevitable) aging impacts upon your dietary choices for medical reasons, then it is indeed an egregious fault in your daughter that she would choose to be intolerant of your needs. If this is not the case, it seems logical that your intransigence in the face of her attempts to influence you about veganism is based upon taste, habit, convenience and tradition, not belief or conviction.
 
Presumably, since you portray yourself as one who has accommodated and been fully supportive of her life choices, you have also extended your empathetic inclinations to fully exploring her logic and reasoning?
 
If this is so, you will surely have been amply equipped with the knowledge that billions of sentient beings suffer unspeakable horrors at our hands, every year. These are facts, not illusory or fragmented concepts. They are unpleasant and inconvenient, Is it not a credit to your daughter that she may not look away, as the majority choose to?
 
It is apparent that even by your own estimation, you have successfully raised a loving, caring individual who experiences theriocide (mass extermination of beasts) as palpable, personal pain. Her resulting deep-seated conviction that what transpires in our treatment of them is wrong and unconscionable, colours her perceptions of the world around her.
 
Imagine then, her disappointment in anyone she cares about, who refuses to care similarly. Speculate upon how upsetting it must be to her if those she respects, loves and cherishes, when faced with truths she has come to understand, turn a blind eye and are content to be tacitly complicit in hideous harms.
 
How should she respond, being governed by her conscience (as she clearly is), when she encounters a mindset intransigent to truths about animal suffering, when she expected so much more?
 
I wonder if you have had the bravado to examine your own part in this scenario? Have you been able to get past the disturbing experience of receiving such a powerful challenge from one who once held you in awe? Have you allowed the thought that she might be right to creep into your consciousness? Will your ego allow you to go beyond the excuses we deceive ourselves with to legitimise the dreadful misery we cause animals? Is it possible for you to acknowledge that maybe, your daughter is not revolted by you, but incredulous and flabbergasted that you simply don’t care?
 
Clearly, you believe that your whole stance in publicly demonstrating the strength of your hurt and grievance, is correct and appropriate. Perhaps it is a cry from the heart, intended to bring about rapprochement in your mother/daughter bond.
 
On the other hand, your whole message could appear rather manipulative and self-serving. It could be construed as an attempt to forcibly justify why you will not examine your own culpability. It may seem like a (very public) act of emotional blackmail to let you off the hook in considering your unwillingness to fully consider her position.
 
Personally, I applaud your daughter’s stance. I would not condone any rudeness or disrespect on her part. But then, you don’t accuse her of that, do you? In fact, all your letter actually says is that she makes you feel bad - about you. That’s something you’re doing to yourself.  
 
You may wish to reflect upon why that is.

​Mark Starmer

​Have you ever tried to have a discussion with somebody about a movie or TV show that you love, but they've never seen and have no interest in? It's pretty futile. There are no common points of reference. There are no shared, base tenets to fall back upon. There is no desire on the part of the listener to learn about what enthralls you. In fact, the only connection on this matter might be the fact that you both know what movies and TV shows are. 
 
Have you ever tried to have a discussion with somebody about veganism when they're a confirmed carnivore and have no interest in it? It's pretty futile. There are no common points of reference. There are no shared base tenets to fall back upon. There is no desire on the part of the listener to learn about what is important to you. In fact, the only connection on this matter might be the fact that you both need to eat.
 
I've written previously about methods of influencing others to go vegan, and I've already made the point that having taught the subject, I'm well aware of the styles and methods necessary to persuade another. But this morning it suddenly occurred to me that there is an aspect of this understanding that I have excluded from my consideration: The currency of influence is values.
 
Without some level of shared values, any attempt at getting another to change their thinking or their actions will be a non-starter. I pondered this for a while with reference to what we eat, trying to discern what common value all humans may share.
 
If you are familiar with my blogs, you will know that I have previously assumed that the one thing we all share must be compassion; but time and again, that has been proved to be a very flawed assumption. I have found that many people, who would otherwise be regarded as very compassionate, reserved their compassion for humans alone.
 
Since compassion is simultaneously a value, an emotional response and an action, I had not managed to reach a more powerful imperative than that one to inform people's choices. 

​Then today, I arrived at empathy.
 
It's obvious really. Like compassion, it is also a value, an emotional response and an action. Even more importantly, it is the trigger for compassion, which we may choose when we feel empathy for someone/something else.
 
Whilst I have been labouring under a false apprehension believing that everyone would feel compassion for animals, everybody has the ability to empathise, right?
 
Apparently not.

Psychologists have defined psychopaths as lacking in the ability to empathise. But that leaves the rest of us with the ability to empathise as a built in feature of our psyche. 
 
From this, we may extrapolate that in order to persuade those who still eat meat (or think it's OK to steal eggs, milk etc) that it's not a good thing, all we have to do is ask them to empathise with the animals who suffer harm.
 
Surely that’s an easy thing to do? Even if they may not speak of it in a language we can understand, it is amply evident in their body language, their eyes, and the sounds they make, that they endure terror, agony, heartbreak: a whole host of terrible experiences. Their behaviour demonstrates non-language related emotional responses that humans can spontaneously recognise, even when they are being displayed by another species.
 
So when I utilise my favoured strategies of presenting people with universally recognisable symptoms such as pain and grief, I can then rely upon the innate ability of my fellow beings to empathise, and in response to that empathy, alter their choices and their eating habits, right?
 
Apparently not.
 
Recent updates to scientific thinking have resulted in psychologists making the revised conclusion that psychopaths actually choose not to empathise. And if psychopaths can choose not to empathise, why can’t anybody else?
 
In truth, the majority of the population knows about or have witnessed via direct or indirect experiences, what we put animals through on their way to our plates. And yet they do not change their habituated eating patterns. That means that they are choosing not to empathise. 
 
Bearing in mind what psychologists conclude, what may we decide upon regarding this substantial grouping within our population?
 
Clearly, the implication that those of us who have eschewed meat and any animal products are surrounded by psychopaths is probably a little far-fetched. We’re not in imminent danger from them.
 
Nonetheless, I am left at a loss to understand why my fellow humans obviously, actively choose to ignore suffering in another lifeform, when it is totally within their power to do something about it.
 
It’s shameful.

​You may have heard of Kaziranga National Park. It is located in India and is home to 35 species, including the endangered Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros (pictured above). When compared with more well-known game reserves, such as South Africa’s Kruger National Park, it has neither the size (430 vs. 19,485 square km) nor the cachet that a diversity of species brings (Kruger has 150).
 
Nonetheless, unlike Kruger, Karziranga is achieving great and unique success in protecting its inhabitants. Easy perhaps, when it is so much smaller than Kruger. But even parks a fraction of the South African reserve’s colossal size have not managed to achieve a poaching free record quite as admirable as Kaziranga’s.
 
Their success, however, is not something that is globally applauded or emulated, as one might imagine it would be. Why? Perhaps because in dealing with poachers, Kaziranga operates a strict ‘shoot to kill’ policy; and thus far, it has carried out more than 50 extrajudicial killings.
 
Unsurprisingly, this statistic does not sit well with many authorities. Civil rights groups protest that the shootings are little better than summary executions. The poachers are being robbed of their lives without trial or meaningful purpose. Their families are left without means of support. Wives lose husbands and children lose fathers. Huge emotional distress is caused. Their families have no subsequent recourse to justice. There is no proof that those killed were actually doing anything wrong. The list goes on. And then, of course, there is the crowning argument that these were precious human lives that are being unjustly taken.
 
Hmm.
 
What if we were to see it the other way around?
 
When an animal is slaughtered by a poacher, it is a summary execution. The animal is robbed of its life without meaningful purpose. Their families are left without protection. Mates lose partners and infants lose parents. Huge emotional distress is caused. Their families have no subsequent recourse to justice. Those killed were not doing anything wrong. The list goes on. But the argument that these were precious animal lives that are being unjustly taken only seems to be relevant because the species were otherwise endangered, and supposedly under our protection.
 
The truth is that we blithely accept that animals are ours to do with whatsoever we please. We get upset when nasty poachers kill exotic species that they are not even killing for food. But we still place the value of human life well above that of animals. After all, the poachers merely wanted to stay alive and prosper.
 
But isn’t that what the animals wanted too?
 
I am constantly troubled by mankind’s decision that human life is so much more important than that of other beings. Is it because we believe that we are made in God’s image? (Don’t make me laugh.) Or is it because we know how important our lives are to us, and we imagine that animals aren’t really bothered about theirs?
 
I loathe the hypocrisy that if an animal seriously harms a human, we kill it; yet we could not possibly accept it if animals took that approach with us.
 
I despair that we believe and act in a way that assumes we are the only creatures who have any rights on this planet. We seem incapable of sharing and accepting anything beyond our own bullying supremacy and ruinous domination of the earth.
 
I wonder what type of person it is that places so little value on the life of another being? How far along their pathway do they still have to go before they recognise the sanctity of life and live according to a ‘do no harm’ philosophy?
 
I am puzzled and frustrated that if an animal is endangered, it suddenly becomes more worthy and warrants more protection than any other species. Yet daily, we feel it’s O.K. to slaughter millions of others?
 
So for what it’s worth, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Kaziranga’s policy. I actually feel that their stance is quite heroic. I’ve seen photos of the dead poachers, and to me, they are nowhere nearly as distressing as those of the mutilated animal corpses the poachers leave behind. I shed no tears or feel no pity for them. From my perspective, being dispatched from this lifetime merely provides them with a another opportunity to come back and try to not do vile things to harmless creatures. 
 
But I also realise that I’m extreme in my views about animal rights and welfare. If you think I'm wrong, perhaps you can convince me why?
 

NB. Kaziranga is not the only game park to shoot poachers on sight. They’re just doing it extraordinarily effectively. Many parks, including Kruger, do operate a similar policy. However, their ‘rules of engagement’ are somewhat different.

Yesterday I subjected myself to my (at least) weekly torment of observing footage taken from a slaughter house.
 
It wasn't the usual harrowing and gruesome stuff. Instead it featured a couple of cows in a corridor, waiting to be killed. The soundtrack consisted of the background noises of screams (yes, really) piteous lowing, and pathetic cries made by those further down the execution line. 

​The footage showed the reactions of two hapless beasts as they became increasingly more distressed. They were utterly traumatised by the horrors they obviously knew were to come. As they shifted uneasily in the narrow passage from which there was no possible escape, the camera focused in on their faces. With each tormented, unseen and unheeded plea for mercy from their fellow bovines, their eyes widened in terror. Then as the brief picture show came to an end, the camera zoomed in to give a close up of one of the cow’s eyes. Tears were streaming down its face. 
 
In spite of the total lack of blood and gore, the effect upon me was devastating. I felt sick to the pit of my stomach. My heart felt like it was being tugged out of my chest. I felt tormented, powerless and angry. My own tear ducts worked in sympathy with those of the cows, and i was overcome with a sense of futility and grief for what inevitably befell them,

But it's just my normal viewing experience.
 
So why, you may ask, do I chose to subject myself to this hideous routine of video observation? (And it really is at least once a week - sometimes more.) Why would any self-professed animal lover in their right mind repeatedly put themselves through something so deeply upsetting?
 
Am I?:

1. A masochist.
2. In possession of a deep-seated desire to punish myself.
3. The equivalent of a self-flagellating monk.
4. A closet psychopath who takes pleasure in the pain and suffering of other beings.
5. None of the above.

 
(In case you’re struggling, because you don’t know me, or can’t really tell, the answer is 5.)
 
There's quite a simple explanation really: I watch to remind myself of what happens to helpless, harmless, gentle creatures, because the vast majority of the population won't accept the rights of animals to their lives, or are so lacking in empathy for their plight that they are not prepared to say "No more". 
 
Not satisfied with the explanation? Still wondering why, when I am already an obviously committed animal rights supporter and (would-be) activist, is this necessary?
 
Let me clarify that I don't have a ‘roll up’ memory that mercifully obliterates the ghastly images already seared into my memory. (In fact, I forget precious little of what I see that makes an impression upon me, and I can still vividly recall, and relate, scenes of animal slaughter footage I witnessed decades ago.)
 
So, what is the point?

As far as my own life goes, there's not a great deal more that I may do to make it cruelty free. Sharon, Tristan and I, are all resolute vegans and totally immersed in the no-harm lifestyle. (Our daughter Jenny, to my great disappointment and despite my best efforts - remember my open letter? - still pursues her unfeeling and compassionless, if tacit, endorsement of animal murder. Her indifference allows her to use the pathetic excuses of taste and tradition, but mostly habit and convenience, to convince herself that carnism is not really a problem.)
 
But I'm also human. Like everyone else of our kind, I am prone to weaknesses of failing resolution and lapse of purpose. We live in a world that embraces complacency as a means of controlling both the content and the pace of change; where it is easier to do nothing, than do something - about anything; where there is seldom any apparent repercussion or payback for doing what is harmful, unless it is a blatant abuse of a legal system; where that legal system favours the mighty and domineering and supports dogma and the commercial profit imperative, rather than focusing upon what is right. And we’re all so, so content to look away.
 
So I watch these horror films, these ‘snuff movies’ that graphically demonstrate the nightmares wrought upon those beings that might allows us to treat as lesser than ourselves. It doesn't help me stay vegan (because that's an unimpeachable, lifelong, lifestyle pledge for me now. I don't need help with that!), but to fuel my drive, refresh my impetus, deepen my commitment and reinvigorate my determination to try to do something to right the hideous wrong of theriocide.
 
I see it as something necessary to keep my mind focused on something that is of vital importance to the billions that are so egregiously and unnecessarily robbed of their lives each year. I think it’s vital because:
 
So many of us claim to be animal lovers form a comfortable delineation between pets and food animals.
So many of us who claim to be animal lovers don’t love them enough to stop eating them.
So many of us who have eschewed red meat, don’t think that white meat counts.
So many of us who have sworn off meat altogether think that fishes don’t care if their lives are stolen from them.
So many vegetarians don’t care enough to banish the cruelty of dairy, eggs and other products from their lives.
So many vegans don’t recognise the need to do more than just change themselves. This is only a beginning.
So many of us simply turn away.
 
I do it because I really do love animals. I care about the lives of the two pathetic creatures I watched writhing in unspoken torment last night. I do it because every time I watch such vile things, I know I need to do more to change this evil which we seem to find acceptable. We all need to do more. All animal lovers should expose themselves to watching animal cruelty videos. It might stop their complacency and give their empathy skills a good shakedown. It might spur them to action and help raise the slow trickle of support for animal rights into a raging, roaring tide of change. It’s what the animals need from us.
 
Now.

If you're an animal lover, please ask yourself what you're doing to make a difference to all animals. I don't expect you to expose yourself to monstrous as things I do. But if you care enough, please share this blog.
 
 
PS. If you’ve never heard the word ‘theriocide’ before, don’t bother to look it up. I made it up. We have a word for the mass destruction of people: Genocide. It comes from the Greek word ‘genos’ (race or people) and the Latin suffix ‘cide’ (act of killing). I have merely substituted a derivative of the Greek word ‘therion’ (beast) to create the new word. I find it quite extraordinary that no such word, to describe the mass murder of animals, exists. Feel free to use it.

Recently, I completed reading Eric Clapton’s autobiography. It was a compelling read that took me only three days to get through. I’m not a particular admirer of Mr Clapton’s music. ‘Layla’ rattles round in my head as one of those tunes that gets deeply imbedded in your subconscious from my pre-teenage years, and I love his album ‘Pilgrim’. Nonetheless, it is the only one of his that I possess, so you couldn’t exactly call me a fan.
​
I found the book to be a highly entertaining and an outstandingly open exploration of the musician’s history. It takes a disarmingly honest look at a life riddled with unparalleled ups and downs. Mr C has no problem holding the mirror up to himself, and admitting to not liking what he sees. It was well written, refreshingly lacking in ego, and totally absorbing. Considering that prior to picking it up (at the knock down price of $1.99 on Kindle) I had no real interest in Mr C whatsoever, it was an investment I found most enjoyable.

However, within its pages there were a couple of paragraphs I took issue with. I'm going to write to Mr C about them, but since they raise some interesting generic points, I thought I’d blog about them here.

From his youth, Mr C was a fisherman. It’s a very popular pastime in his native UK, and he has found it a relaxing and pleasant distraction throughout his often-tumultuous career. Later in life he took up shooting, which seemed to be a natural extension of hunting. I’m sure many of the rich and famous do. These so called ‘sporting pursuits’ are a feature of the lifetimes of many young souls. What I have a discomfort with is the manner in which Mr C justifies his attitudes to what he does:

Ethically it was never a problem for me, and it is the same with fishing. My family and I eat what I catch and shoot. It is fresh and healthy and we love it. I am a hunter; it is in my genes, and I am quite comfortable with that. I also support a lot of other countryside pursuits, quite simply because I believe they are an important part of our culture and heritage, and need protecting, usually from people or movements of people, who have little understanding of the delicate economic balance of countryside communities, and who have watched too many Disney movies.

It’s ironic that several pages later, Mr C relates the following:

It’s not everybody’s favourite sport, and some people can get quite worked up about it. I remember a few years earlier, with trout fishing, I actually hit a kind of brick wall myself. I was fishing down on the Test [an English river] when I suddenly stopped and thought, “Why am I doing this?” I had caught a couple of fish, killed them and put them in my bag, and I thought, “This is not right.” I was confused because I enjoyed fishing, but it seemed that if I couldn’t justify it to myself, at that exact moment, then I was going to have to stop. That’s when I decided that from then on, I was going to eat everything I caught. I have tried to apply the same principle to shooting, which is all well and good, but it’s a tall order, trying to eat all the pheasant and partridge I shoot. Nevertheless, we try.

Well… Here are a few observations I would like to make:

• It’s quite fascinating that Mr C almost made a breakthrough when his higher self had him realise that he was doing something he really shouldn’t be. Unfortunately, he ignored it (which is fairly typical for everyone) and reverted to the ‘it’s OK if I eat it’ logic; but then as good as admits that he kills too much to do that!

• The ‘eat what I kill’ argument is used by hunters all over, because that seems to make it OK to take the lives of other creatures. It is my understanding that cannibals also eat what they kill. But that’s not OK, because they eat humans and human lives matter. The lives of animals, birds and fish don’t, right?

• The flesh of other creatures is 'fresh and healthy' to eat? Compared to what? Listeria pate? It may indeed be ‘fresh’, dripping with blood and all that. But I wonder if Mr C has read the recent reports about how bad meat is for people. It’s not so healthy after all, to say nothing of the fact that it carries the vibration of terror experienced when it was killed. Or perhaps fish, fighting for their lives at the end of a line with a barbed hook piercing their flesh aren’t worried at all. Perhaps their thrashing about is not desperation to save their lives at all. Perhaps they’re just enjoying the ‘sport’. And those game birds. They just love that ‘dodging the shotgun pellet’ thing, don’t they? It’s so exhilarating!

• Let me ask you as a reader: Do you know what’s in your genes? Did the doctors tell your parents? Are you an accountant, or a nurse, or maybe a monk? I can accept that Mr C is a musician, through and through. But the “I am hunter, it is in my genes” bit is a crass attempt to justify bloodlust. We’re WAY past being hunters as a species. It's a lame justification at this stage to blame it on the gene pool! Funny how that hunter-killer thing runs in some families, eh?

• Amongst those other countryside ‘sports’ that Mr C supports, is fox hunting. A spokesperson for him is on record as saying "Eric supports the Countryside Alliance. [for this read: movement of people who enjoy mindlessly killing innocent creatures that are just trying to stay alive, some of which they will label vermin because it’s a convenient justification for their actions, even though said creatures are simply trying to eat what is natural for them.] He doesn't hunt himself, but does enjoy rural pursuits such as fishing and shooting sports. He supports the Alliance's pursuit to scrap the ban [on fox hunting] on the basis that he doesn't agree with the state's interference with people's private pursuits" In other words, if it’s OK for Mr C to have fun blowing defenceless creatures away, he can’t really claim it’s not OK for everyone else to do so too.

• So, blood sports are “an important part of our culture and heritage”, are they? Hmm. Just how important a part of the UK culture is killing animals for fun? Is it bedrock stuff? Is that what attracts the droves of tourists who flock there? Is that part of what defines Brits? Or is ritualised 'sport' killing something indulged in mainly by the wealthy and privileged? Whoever does it, does that make it right? Does it mean that this aspect of the culture is good, admirable, acceptable, pleasant, meaningful, harmless or beneficial? If something is part of some precedent established centuries ago, does that mean that the action should be protected? Shouldn’t we look at our past actions and examine the barbarity of them? And if we can see it, and recognise that it is not necessary, (even if it is ’fun’) shouldn’t we be NOT doing it anymore? Don’t we eschew what is bad? Don’t we seek to purge the parts of our heritage that are no longer appropriate? How is slaughtering harmless creatures that we don’t need for food appropriate? Consider these aspects of the UK's heritage: Tens of thousands were executed by burning and beheading. The Brits invented and ran concentration camps in South Africa long before the Nazis ever adopted the idea. Unfortunates were locked in work houses and used as forced labour only a century ago. Criminals and undesirables were habitually deported to the other side of the world to face a bleak and uncertain future, almost within living memory. The list goes on and on. Yet you don’t do these things anymore. They are no longer parts of the culture and heritage that are embraced. Surely progress is about looking at our faults and flaws and moving away from them, not clinging on to them because they have once been aspects of culture and heritage? (Yeah, but Mr C is only talking about taking the lives of a few animals, isn’t he? No harm there is there? Unless you happen to be the fish or the fox or the bird. But we all know they don’t matter, don’t we?)

• Then we come to the “delicate economic balance of countryside communities”. Oh please! This is the complete crock that has been touted around by those who have bloodlust ever since I was a kid. It was nonsense then, and it’s nonsense now. Communities simply DO NOT survive because a bunch of Barbour jacketed ‘sportsmen’ come and blast the hell out of the birds the locals have bred for the purpose. Maybe in the whole of the UK a few hundred people are associated with this for their employment. But to generalize that countryside communities rely upon this ‘delicate balance’ is farcical. Please Mr C, point me in the direction of just one of these delicately balanced communities. Explain the math of it to me. I understand economics. Tell me how a whole community exists because of killing. Then, if you can actually find one, (which I know you’d fail to do, because such places ceased to exist at the turn of the nineteenth century – swat up on your history) explain to me how it’s right, or acceptable in this age? How did you get suckered into believing this ridiculous propaganda? Haven’t you explored it for yourself to reveal the nonsense it is? Or is it too convenient an excuse.

• And finally, the Disney comment. LOL. It’s true, those of us who have watched Disney movies all grow up believing, and cherish the knowledge in adulthood, that animals can talk (and often sing), are wholly benevolent, exist to help humans in times of crisis and should therefore be protected at all costs. Our attitudes towards them clearly have nothing to do with respecting their right to life; nothing to do with valuing them as beings in their own right; nothing to do with abhorring the cruelty and suffering to which they are subjected; nothing to do with realising that as a race in order to survive, we need to evolve and stop doing harm to everything around us; nothing to do with accepting that harming them only harms ourselves; nothing to do with the thought that the measure of us as humans is how we treat the meekest and most vulnerable amongst us; and nothing to do with the knowledge that if we can’t treat animals as they should be treated, there’s probably not that much hope for any us.

 
Despite the way it appears, I have a very high regard for Mr C. I really enjoyed his book and he is clearly a very fine musician. Moreover, I have a great deal of respect for what he has achieved in overcoming some major life challenges (he put in place for himself). He's doing well on his pathway, but he's got a long way to go in certain areas, and some key learning has passed him by – so far. I hope he 'gets it' in time. After all the compassion he's demonstrated, all he's managed to overcome, and the outstanding mastery he has achieved in other areas of his life, it’s almost unworthy of him to not choose to see past the deceptions he is kidding himself with. 

I apologise for sounding off at him in this way. I'm not picking on the guy. He just provided me with an entree to a blog subject. I’m afraid that his comments are reflective of the thinking of the majority of the population, who are content to pull the wool over their own eyes and find what should be unacceptable, quite normal. This needs to be put right.

PS. In case the title of this blog means nothing to you, a slow hand clap, when given to a performer, is a sign of disapproval. 'Slow Hand' is also Eric Clapton's favourite nickname.

As I write this, a friend has posted horrendous pictures on Facebook from a farmer she knows. The gruesome and highly distressing scenes show the devastation caused by two dogs that have managed to kill 120 of the farmer’s sheep. They are left maimed and torn, but obviously not eaten. This was obviously ‘fun’ for the dogs.

​The photos are sickening and would probably shock/anger anyone who viewed them. Their anger would undoubtedly be for the farmer, at the dogs and those who are their owners. They might feel pity for the sheep, so needlessly put to death. Seeing the photos, few would feel any regret if the perpetrating dogs were shot, and this might indeed be the best end for them.
 
For reasons explained in a previous blog regarding our need to experience the taking of life, whilst I do not condone the actions of the dogs. I do understand them, and I can even empathise with them. They have to experience this too.  But I am as abhorred by them as the next person.
 
However, I do see the irony in the outrage provoked on Facebook.

A certain number of people will be horrified that the farmer is losing his livelihood as a result of the dogs. After all, these sheep represent his income. They doubtless had a considerable market value at the slaughter house.

Then there will be those who feel pity for the sheep themselves, so cruelly chased and tormented before having their throats ripped out.

I can relate to either perspective.
 
There is another viewpoint however.
 
For those who sympathise with the monetary disadvantage the farmer will suffer, consider that the poor sheep that lost their lives are being viewed as a mere commodity. Sure, the farmer will lose money, but why would we assume that we have rights over the lives of other animals to begin with? Weren't they more than dollars? Didn't they have a right to their lives? How is it that they became mere 'property'.
 
And I wonder if those who sympathise with the sheep and their awful fate, have considered how terrifying an end they would otherwise have met at the abattoir, stunned, strung up and having their throats slit whilst still partially (or often wholly) conscious? I can well imagine that the sheep fled in terror from the marauding canines, but at least they had a chance to escape. In the slaughter house, their end would come to them as if in slow motion, with no possible chance at respite.
 
When we are presented with images of the likes I have described, we go into a mode of thinking that conveniently allows us to forget that even if they had not met this fate, the sheep would still not have been allowed to live out their lives free from fear. The difference is that humans would have been responsible for their demise, not canines. We quickly judge the dogs, but if we do something that is maybe even worse, it’s O.K. We do not condemn ourselves. Sure, we wouldn't be killing them for fun as the dogs did, but then it's not really necessary that they die at all, is it?
 
We all know that the sheep, like all of us, just wanted to stay alive. They wanted to live out their lives in peace, and it is only our assumed proprietorial belief system that allows us to accept that we have the right to dominion over their lives. WE DON'T.
 
It could be that the dogs actually did them a favour.

PS. If you're thinking that maybe these were sheep kept for wool, don't deceive yourself. Do you imagine they get to live full lives and expire naturally?