When Whip’s owners’ went to feed their beloved horse in the morning, they found he was gone. Then they wandered into a nearby field where they made a horrific discovery. They found the body of their beloved friend and family member, completely butchered. This was a cold blooded killing: the horse had been butchered in the dead of night, somewhere between midnight and 5am, ostensibly for his meat. There have been other similar incidents in nearby counties, indicating that a killer may well be targeting horses in the local area.

The Sheriff’s Office and the Florida Agricultural Crimes Intelligence Unit are working on this crime and Collier County deputies have increased their presence in areas where people keep horses. Just like serial killers who target humans, it seems vulnerable horses are being preyed upon. Horses can be picked off by killers at their leisure as they graze in fields, powerless to protect themselves.

It is difficult to imagine what Whip went through in his final minutes or hours. The killer worked in the dead of night to butcher Whip, and more than likely took pleasure in the horse’s suffering. Whip’s owners describe themselves as grief-stricken. Their loss is the loss of a family member. They explain how they miss the 8 year old horse Whip, who they adopted as a four year old, and his “great personality.” Their loss is the loss of a sovereign individual who can never be replaced, and worse, a family member who was killed in the most brutal and gruesome way. Whip’s family are offering a $12,600 reward to anyone who can provide info about the person who killed him. This cannot bring back Whip, but if his killer is caught, another horse will not have to endure the unimaginable pain of brutal violence, and another family will not have to grieve the loss of beloved family member.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/animal-news/family-s-horse-found-butchered-florida-horrific-crime-n1145841

Once again, the fates of humans affects so much more than just us. Coronavirus has put pet shelters into emergency mode. The bad news is that pet shelters are so understaffed that their intake of pets is greatly reduced. The good news is that people are stepping up across the country to adopt and foster pets and take virtual tours to get to know animals. The adoption and fostering of animals is actually up, but then again, pet shelters can’t keep a regular turnover of animals, so stray animals will be adversely affected by this crisis.

Even though adoptions are up, there have been fears about people dumping their pets by the side of the road because of coronavirus fears. As well as being unconscionable, this is completely uninformed. First, there’s the moral failure of abandoning an animal that is dependent on you. If you wouldn’t abandon a relative in your household, you should not abandon a pet. Even if pets were able to spread coronavirus, it’s possible to practice adequate social distancing by keeping them indoors or being careful when you exercise them.

However, there is absolutely no evidence right now that companion animals like dogs and cats can transmit the virus. Though two dogs tested positive for Covid-19, this says nothing about their ability to spread the virus. Testing on animals does reveal a huge tragedy though – the death of pigs and other industrially farmed animals from coronavirus or related illnesses. Pigs have similarities to humans that make them the animals most likely to contract or spread coronavirus. Our insistence on industrially farming animals for meat is the reason for the tragic death of pigs in their huge numbers in this quiet and unreported pandemic.

One way you can protect animals is to stay informed and correct the spread of egregious misinformation that endangers animals. Practicing social distancing with pets and encouraging others to do the same is something else you can do. In many states you can adopt or foster pets and meet them virtually before you pick them up. You can also encourage vegan eating and continue to reject and fight against the hegemony of industrial farming and demand better treatment for all animals.

Read More:

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/3/27/21194027/coronavirus-covid-19-animal-shelters-foster-pets

usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/03/27/animal-adoptions-shelters-get-creative-pair-parents-pets-amid-coronavirus/2907199001/

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-animals-vulnerable-covid-.html

There are times when a death toll goes so high that the significance of numbers is nothing but the complete loss of their significance. No longer are numbers able to speak of the loss of the individual to a community, to a family, to a habitat. The only thing they are able to speak of is the loss of meaning, the incalculable damage done to life itself. When we hear of a human death toll – a disaster, a massacre — the number of dead hits us like a blow to our sense of individual destiny: the right we think we have to thrive, to matter. The dead are like a wave that sweeps across our consciousness, constantly overwhelming our efforts at recognition, at the distinction we humans find between ourselves and others, our environment. We are connected with others in our helpless masses, no longer as helpers or community members, but as mere victims. The numbers stand while we fall, unable to resist the magnitude, the amplitude of the loss.

The numbers of estimated animal dead in Australia cannot be compared to a human village, nor a town, nor even a nation. Instead, the numbers of estimated animal dead in Australia’s fires make up one eighth of the world’s human population today. This animal death toll doesn’t even include frogs and insects.

As humans, we work among the ruins of our own disasters to regain our personal significance. We cling on to activity: gestures of solidarity, statements about change that are as much made to feed the ego as to stake out a real commitment. We reassure ourselves that we are individuals, that we matter. In the wake of Australia’s fires, humans feeding baby koalas and wrapping them in blankets are broadcast as a signal of activity that fills the void of disaster. They speak of our ability to care, to matter, as helpers and agents for animals. Despite the great good of these activities, they do not speak of the loss and grief of animals themselves, nor of their situation as displaced individuals and families who have been devastated by Australia’s inadequate climate change policy.

The animals who have survived have lost their family members and in some cases their entire habitats or livelihoods. The best known example is the Koala, which has been decimated by the fires on Kangaroo island. These koalas had represented a sanctuary and a reserve, protected from the chlamydia that has kept other koalas from reproducing successfully. There are questions over whether a small marsupial which lives its life shielded from danger in greenery has any real shot of sustainable existence in its hollowed out home on Kangaroo island.

We humans imagine death from fire as striking these animals with explosive might, but before the fires, animals were already dying of exposure to intense heat. Birds were dropping out of trees. Animals were starving because their food supplies were drying to a crisp. The fires that have grabbed human attention have left animals homeless. Those who have survived and haven’t received medical attention are enduring great suffering from hunger and injury. The Australia fires have unearthed a world of animals who carry on their lives whether we notice or care or not.

We need to follow the story of animal lives beyond this crisis as they now evade opportunistic predators like feral cats, as livestock dead create bio-hazards for animals, as they move about and use their ingenuity to survive but often fail to make it. Animals, like humans, do what they can to survive, including sheltering together in wallaby burrows. Heroic working dogs have rescued animals from fires. The sight of injured animals, baby koalas clutching stuffed animals, should remind us that other species have their own emotional needs and communities. Everyday animal lives, not human heroism, are the ignored clues to helping animals and working alongside them. For example, it should have been clear by damage from the heat wave in Australia, and by animal behavior, that climate change disaster was already preying upon the animal population. The fear is that California “will be next.” The sovereignty of animal lives needs to be consistently observed and recognized outside of disaster scenarios. Waking up to animal sovereignty, animal pain, animal solidarity can transform the death of animals from a number into an accountability for the loss.

The rescue efforts are not going to stop when the fires start to disappear from the headlines. This article has some information on how to support the rescue efforts going on: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/australia-fires-have-killed-more-than-a-billion-animals-so-far-how-you-can-help/ However, ongoing donations to animal conservation organizations such as the World Wildlife Federation are needed indefinitely. Commitments to fight climate change and move away from animal exploitation and death are needed Right Now.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-01-14/australia-fires-killed-millions-of-animals-kangaroo-island
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/australia-fires-have-killed-more-than-a-billion-animals-so-far-how-you-can-help/

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/more-1-billion-animals-killed-australian-wildfires-n1112326

The more access we have to information, the more examples we see of the way animals work together, care for and even comfort each other in sadness and illness. A touching photo of comfort dogs at the vet is the latest example to catch people’s attention. Some vets have dogs whose job is to provide comfort and solace for sick and dying dogs. These dogs are able to care for other dogs by letting them know that everything’s going to be OK, and by just being there in the same way humans are for each other.

It’s remarkable and yet not remarkable. What people are witnessing isn’t just animals being adorable, but animals interacting together just as humans do. Acts of kindness between people can also have this feelgood factor. Caring for other beings is something that doesn’t stop at our own species. The days when there was an easy excuse to see animals as automatic and unfeeling are passing away. All the evidence shows that animals are a parallel society who can organize and bond in deep ways. It’s great that people are sharing these stories, but discovering that animals feel solidarity, comfort and pain should do more than make us feel good. It should awaken us to the bonds we break and the pain we cause when we are violent to animals.

Veterinarian Has A ‘Comfort Dog’ That Assists Sick, Scared Pets

The Taji dolphin hunt is one of the most notorious animal slaughters around the world. Every year animal activists look on in horror and helplessness while entire pods of dolphins are lured into coves in the town of Taji in Japan and slaughtered wholesale. These dolphin families are wiped out in front of each other in the name of local tradition. Other dolphins are rounded up and captured and sold for thousands of dollars to aquariums in China that aren’t compliant with world standards on captive animals. The 2009 movie “The Cove” was made to expose this terrible slaughter and the world’s helplessness to stop it. Ten years later it is still going on.

The film-makers filmed fishermen luring the dolphins into the cove and killing them by stabbing them with knives. Yet the killings somehow still persist. Fishermen and officials claim the killings are now humane. The actual reality of the killings though, are far from this. According to this description, this is how the dolphins die:

“A metal rod is repeatedly stabbed into the back of the dolphin’s neck and a wooden plug is inserted into the open wound to prevent blood loss. This means the dolphins die a slow, painful death, taking several minutes to bleed out or drown in their own blood.” [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/13/taiji-dolphin-hunt-activists-to-launch-unprecedented-legal-challenge]

Mere words cannot begin to describe the horror of this slaughter. Close family units of dolphin pods are killed in front of each other in pitifully cruel ways. Some dolphins who don’t die are released and die of their injuries in the wild. Other “perfect specimens” are sold for thousands of dollars to theme parks. It’s difficult to imagine the despair of seeing your whole family killed and then having to live out your life in captivity and isolation. The town of Taji still clings on to its 400 year “tradition” of whaling. The town is so attached to these traditions that the local whale museum has backed away from International agreements among zoos and aquariums not to display captive animals.

Despite the obvious scientific fact that dolphins are mammals, not fish, they are legally classified as fish in Japan, which means they can’t be protected by cruelty laws. The fishermen and town of Taji have a choice to step away from the killing, but as they are legally free to keep hunting dolphins, the killing goes on. Activists are attacking the cruelty by bringing a lawsuit based on the fishermen exceeding quotas and the dolphins’ status as mammals rather than fish.

When we see what humans do to animals we truly enter the realm of the arbitrary. Laws segmenting the animal kingdom into those that can be harmed and those that can’t; brutal “traditions” that humans cling to when it’s no longer a matter of survival; the right to treat animals as chattels and kill and torture them. Killing animals exposes us to the side of our nature that is violent and irrational. In the case of the ritualized Taji killings, we have to look unflinchingly at these practices, but also beyond them. Animal captivity for example, is not a harmless counterpoint to eating animals, it is part of the system that gives animals value as “things” rather than independent beings:

“People need to understand that if they’re planning a vacation down to Mexico and they want to swim with dolphins in captivity, they’re encouraging this behavior and this hunting season to continue.” [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/14/japans-dolphin-hunt-struggle-between-local-traditions-global-anger/]

The killings of Taji should throw a harsh light on the irrationality and cruelty of tradition for its own sake. Any value system in which animals and our fellow humans have a use value to us rather than independent sovereignty of their own, will inevitably become abusive. The killing grounds of the Taji waters are not an outlandish annual event, they are the ritualized nature of violence laid bare.

Read More:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/13/taiji-dolphin-hunt-activists-to-launch-unprecedented-legal-challenge

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/14/japans-dolphin-hunt-struggle-between-local-traditions-global-anger/

Australia’s Capital Territory has just taken an important leap forward in the legal treatment of animals. The new laws in Australia’s Capital Territory recognize that animals can perceive and feel the world around them and have “intrinsic value.” These concepts finally depart from the legal structures which incarcerate animals as objects designed for humans’ use and abuse, and which characterize most legal systems around the world.

The laws impose sizeable fines and prison sentences for confining animals, lack of animal care and participating in cruelty to animals. They also move to restrict pet shops and the pet shop industry.
There is reason to celebrate the passing of these laws, but a good beginning mustn’t be a permanent band-aid. This article is right to point out that “animal sentience” does more to regulate treatment of pets than it does to change humans’ relationship with animals. Australian industries that harm animals won’t be expected to change. A “duty of care” is imposed on humans when they are in a relationship of care. But so many of human relations with animals are mediated through profit and product, rather than care. The new laws recognize that animals should not be humans’ property in the law. In practice they will defend the animals humans have chosen as pets, abandoning the animals victimized by industry. We can only hope that the interpretation of these laws and further activism will expand protection to animals who are still being brutalized.

Read More:

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6407314/act-passes-australia-first-animal-sentience-laws/

In an ideal world, mourning the death of any living being should not bring relief for their passing. When death brings relief because a being has been suffering unimaginably however, we are glad the suffering has passed out of the world, at least. Often, the suffering of any animal comes in the form of pain or illness. In the case of Tikiri, the 70 year old elephant, her suffering was a result of years’ of slavery and abuse. The 70 year old Tikiri the elephant came to the world’s attention due to her emaciated appearance at a religious festival in Sri Lanka. The animal was used in a parade for 10 days each year. She was photographed in a skeletal, emaciated state, apparently malnourished and exhausted by her job. The elephant would march for days at this festival while hungry, exhausted and at an advanced age. Her body was covered with decorations to hide her terrible condition. Tikiri had been a working animal all her life, and was forced to march, despite being “India’s oldest elephant.”

It’s easy to forget that “fun elephant rides” for tourists are the other face of animal slavery. If tourists and those attending religious festivals boycott attractions and entertainments based on elephant slavery, unnecessary suffering could be prevented. That way, Tikiri’s suffering could at least lead to some kind of justice for others’ like her.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/asia/emaciated-elephant-death-sri-lanka-scli-intl/index.html

This Vice headline sums the Amazon situation up with the kind of bluntness that’s needed at the moment: “Sad About the Amazon Fires? Stop Eating Meat.” The article is a timely correction to the assumption that logging is the reason we are losing the Amazon rainforests. Many posting on social media accounts about the Amazon fires are unthinkingly connecting the damage to “other people”: greedy logging companies etc., when in fact the trail leads directly back to the people posting – many of whom eat meat. Cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon, and clearing lands to make way for cattle is what is causing the fires.

The growing demand for meat is driving this destruction, in particular the demand for beef. With plenty of healthy protein substitutes available, the slaughter of cattle is completely unnecessary. Industrial farming harms the environment in other ways through water pollution from slaughterhouses. Animal suffering is an inevitable byproduct of treating animals like products, to be mutilated and packaged. In the tragedy of the Amazon rainforest we can see how this approach to life has outward ripples. When we treat life like an industrial product, when we kill animals brutally, we lack the respect for other life that is ultimately needed to save our own lives and habitats.

Read More:
https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/bjwzk4/feeling-sad-about-the-amazon-fires-stop-eating-meat

by Dr. Kevin Boileau

In Santics v. Vancouver (City) Animal Control Officer, 2019 BCCA 294, The appellant’s dog was designated a dangerous dog after it seriously injured a person in a public park. The Provincial Court judge who heard the matter assumed the availability of conditional orders falling short of destruction in dangerous dog proceedings under s. 324.1 of the Vancouver Charter, but held that the lack of reasonable alternatives for the dog’s rehabilitation meant that there was no choice but to order destruction. The judge’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on appeal. The appellant appeals from the order of the Supreme Court. Held: Appeal dismissed. On the evidence, it was open to the Provincial Court judge to conclude that the appellant’s dog posed an unacceptable risk to the public and ought to be destroyed. Furthermore, on an application by an animal control officer to the Provincial Court for a destruction order pursuant to s. 324.1(10) of the Vancouver Charter or s. 49(10) of the Community Charter, the Provincial Court, upon finding that the dog is dangerous in that it poses an unacceptable risk to the public, does not have the jurisdiction to make a conditional order falling short of the dangerous dog’s destruction; the dog must be ordered to be destroyed. The Provincial Court does, however, have the jurisdiction to conclude that the dog does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public, in that the dog is not likely to kill or seriously injure in the future, whereupon the dog is to be returned to its owner.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux states as follows, in the court record:
I: INTRODUCTION
[1] This appeal marks the first opportunity for this court to substantively address the dangerous dog provisions of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, and identical provisions contained in the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26.

[2] In an order dated January 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant, Ms. Susan Santics, from an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia requiring the destruction of her dog. Ms. Santics appeals to this court from the order of the Supreme Court.

[3] This appeal concerns not only the fate of “Punky” — a four-year-old Australian cattle dog owned by Ms. Santics and which seriously injured a woman in a public park — but also raises questions as to the Provincial Court’s powers on an application for the destruction of a dangerous dog. In particular, it raises the question of whether s. 324.1(10) of the Vancouver Charter and s. 49(10) of the Community Charter confer jurisdiction on the Provincial Court to make conditional orders falling short of destruction.

[4] This appeal also raises the correctness of Capital Regional District v. Kuo, 2006 BCSC 1282 (“Kuo”). For 13 years, Kuo has been relied on by both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court — the latter in its role as an appeal court — as the authority for the Provincial Court’s jurisdiction to make conditional orders falling short of destruction in dangerous dog proceedings: see, for example, Panton v. Central Okanagan (Regional District), 2016 BCSC 69.

[5] I would conclude as follows:

(a) in so far as Ms. Santics’ dog is concerned, the Supreme Court judge committed no reviewable error in dismissing the appeal from the Provincial Court’s order that the dog be destroyed;
(b) contrary to the reasoning in Kuo, once the Provincial Court has found that a dog is likely to kill or seriously injure within the meaning of the Vancouver Charter or the Community Charter, it does not have the jurisdiction to make orders — conditional or otherwise — save for that the dog in question be destroyed;
(c) notwithstanding (b), there may be circumstances in which a dog that satisfies the statutory definition of “dangerous dog” nonetheless does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public, in which event the Provincial Court must dismiss the destruction application and release the dog to its owner; and,
(d) while there may well be good policy reasons for recognizing conditional orders in certain situations, as legislation in some Canadian provinces has done, it is for the Legislature and not this court to determine the framework that ought to apply in British Columbia.
(e) I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.

There is more to the complete record, but let’s focus on the summary above, which demonstrates serious lack of due process and a serious lack of regard for the life of a dog. The Appellate decision on its face is violent and irrational because it won’t give the provincial court authority to weigh middle-ground options including rehabilitation, and transfer of custodianship out of the city. In the U.S. this could be viewed as a serious due process issue, especially because of the legal trend to recognize that domestic dogs have interests. Even the language of the vicious dog statute is suspect because one option is to “destroy” the dog. To destroy is something you do to things not living beings. Even death row human inmates are not destroyed, they are executed. Thus beyond the fact that this judge just overturned several years’ of common law, the actually vicious dog law would apparently be in conflict with the trend in the law to recognize interests if not some rights of domestic dogs.

Second, whatever harm happened was due to the negligence of this dog’s custodian and yet the Canadian court system chooses to make the dog responsible. This dog should never have been in the city. He is a cattle dog and should be out in the country. Currently he is being held in impound, which is further harm to him. The dog is a victim here, not a perpetrator.

Third, because this dog’s very life is at stake, the Appellate Court justice and the Provincial court erred in allowing the dog’s custodian to represent herself and her dog’s interest. At a very minimum this custodian should have been represented by counsel. The court should have also required that the dog be represented by separate legal counsel when his very liv eis at stake. Obviously, the court recognizes the need for some due process requirements in vicious dog adjudications. It seems logical that it would recognize the interests of the dog, especially in a capital case like this.

Fourth, the provincial court erred in not allowing the development of evidence that this dog could be rehabilitated. Now, the Appellate Court makes the specious argument that the dog has not been rehabilitated in its two years’ imprisonment, but this very imprisonment was caused by the government. Thus, the government cannot make the unpersuasive argument that the dog’s custodian took no measures to rehabilitate the dog while it has been imprisoned. There has been little to no evidence adduced about sending the dog out of the city, and into the hands of a certified sanctuary in North America, where the dog could be rehabilitated, placed in a new and safer environment away from the congestion of people in a city park. The Appellate Court has clearly erred in its conclusion that there is no evidence that the dog is an acceptable risk to the public. The Provincial Court makes the same error.

In short, this is a tragic case of A) a dog being in the wrong environment for its breed and temperament and B) needing a different sort of human custodian. Perhaps if Punky’s owner transferred his ownership to a rehabilitation expert, a sanctuary, or some other kind of certified organization that was far out of the jurisdiction and far away from the city, the court would find that this would insure an “acceptable level of risk to the public.”

If the Supreme Court of Canada hears this case, it ought to send it back to the provincial court with instructions that insure due process and prevent the further harm of the canine victim, Punky.

by Dr. Kevin Boileau – Psychoanalyst and Lawyer-Mediator

There are at least three non-violent solutions that would better than the MCIRVIN RANCH returning again and again to kill members of the Profanity Wolf Pack in the northeastern part of the state. Yet, Washington State officials continue to side with the violent destruction of an endangered species while weak-minded Wolf Advisory members look on, watch, and agree. We find the actions of the state and the Wolf Advisory Committee to be both morally unjustified and intellectually specious.

The gray wolves are protected by the Endangered Species Act. The Profanity Pack lives in one of the most remote regions of the United States. These wolves don’t bother any humans except for one family. This is the MCIRVIN ranching family in Eastern Washington who rents OUR PUBLIC LAND for cattle grazing in order to increase its profits. Because the wolf pack has apparently attacked the cattle, and because the Wolf Advisory Committee has foolishly created a murder protocol, men from U.S. Wildlife Services obtain a license to exterminate this wolf pack instead of seeking rational and non-violent solutions.

There is much debate about how to prevent wolves from killing livestock. PhD-level researchers with non-violent solutions were hushed up by state officials. Others have suggested moving cattle from the public lands. Yet, because wolves do not enjoy ontological parity with humans, if humans’ interests are a factor, federal protections don’t defend the wolves from being killed. When the interests of humans and animals differ, humans will always win in the end — even though wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Because every aspect of the planet is commodified under capitalism, the wolves are assigned a value less than that of a ranching family’s interests in money. Because the ranch has rented out PUBLIC LANDS, their interest is valued more than the wolves’ interest in remaining alive.

Conservation groups on the Wolf Advisory Board are so grateful to be allowed a voice at the table with the state authority and with ranching money that they are afraid to take a truly protective stance for wolves. There are many public Internet entries proclaiming how “tragic” this is and how sad the individuals are on behalf of the wolves, but there is but no real advocacy and solidarity. It is disappointing that such a weak group of people is in charge of making these important decisions. In contrast, the rancher is simply providing slaughtered meat to citizens with an addiction for it, even though climate science strongly warns against this polluting, immoral enterprise.

Anyone who was involved in drafting this kill protocol, anyone who continues to order the wolf genocide, or carry these orders out, should be deeply ashamed of themselves. They demonstrate neither intelligence nor moral consciousness. Either directly or by complicit passivity they represent the violence in humanity, and the lack of regard for other sentient beings. It shows a lack creative problem-solving skills or worse yet, allowing ourselves to become inebriated by “bureau-speak.”

The three non-violent options are to collar the cows, move the cows and pay the rancher money, or rescue and transport these wolves. In addition, there are at least three truths of the matter. First, there is no other place for the wolves to go than where they are. Second, the pups are just as innocent as the puppy you brought home for your children. Third, it is still an option to re-locate the remaining wolves. We are betting that the Wolf Advisory Board remains passive and that the scurrilous demagogues in Olympia maintain their murderous, violent, vile campaign. Why? The public wants to know.