Four dolphins are being kept in a 10mx20m chlorinated pool at the Wake Bali resort. In the exhibit, tourists are allowed to pet and hug the dolphins, which have gone nearly blind from the chlorine. On top of that, the pool in which they are kept overlooks the ocean, as if the conditions were not cruel enough.
Dolphins are highly intelligent and sentient creatures that have the ability to form complex family ties and a language outside of our comprehension. To keep them confined and drenched in chemicals is inhumane and wrong.
I don't feel that this post needs to be extremely long because the photos and logic speak for themselves.
Please sign the Change.org petition here to make sure our voices are heard.
A month or so ago I posted a quick take on the video of Oklahoma students performing a dance routine with the bodies of cats intended to be used for educational purposes (see that post here), and today I am going to attempt to shed a little more light on the subject. Dissection of animals in the classroom has become a rather touchy subject throughout recent years. Debates have become quite heated as the treatment and production of the donated animals, as well as the actual necessity of the activity and how comfortable the students themselves are with the process. So let's dive in: The pros and cons of animal dissections in schools and why, ultimately, I believe that the activity should be banned.
Photo from pragmaticmom.com
We will begin with the positive effects of using real animals for scientific studies in schools. To begin with, studies have shown that many students better absorb the material being taught to them when they have hands-on experience. By dissecting the actual animal in their textbooks, they are able to comprehend the structures and functions of the body systems more easily than in a slideshow presentation, worksheet, or video. Others argue that once the animal is dead, why waste its body by simply disposing of it instead of using it to further our children's knowledge of the workings of the natural world around them. Another argument is that it is an experience, similar to a tradition or right of passage, and an important part of a student's life. I am not going to discount the importance of experiences in a person's life and how they shape them. I myself dissected a cow bone in the third grade, as well as two rats in my high school career. However, in my personal experience, these activities could have been just as easily completed on paper or virtually, as I had a solid comprehension of the material we were being taught and the formaldehyde fumes made me light-headed. Experiences are very important in a person's life, especially the developing youth that are going to shape the future of our world, and I am no one to discount that. However I do not believe that education should be the reason for any kind of suffering, and on that note, we move into the arguments for the banning of dissections in schools.
In my previous post about the students in Oklahoma, we witnessed the abuse of the bodies of cats that were intended for educational use. This is not an exception, this is not the only case. Students from Newport Harbor High School "were pictured [online] posing with the dead animals. One student held up a cat's head and pretended to lick it. The head of another turned up in a student’s locker," reported the Pacific Standard.
The bodies of these animals are being abused by some teenagers, and causing emotional harm to others. In some schools, students are not given the option to opt out of dissecting animals, no matter how squeamish or uncomfortable they may feel. The acquisition of animals for these classes is not always honest. Yes, there are companies who breed animals specifically to donate their bodies to science, but there are also "donations" from pounds and pet shelters, slaughterhouses, pet stores, and even companion animals who "escaped" from their homes. Sometimes the animals are not dead when they are injected with formaldehyde, and must suffer a slow and painful death at the hand of the chemical. Others are cruelly killed by the workers in supply factories. PETA describes an instance where "one rabbit, still alive after being gassed, tried to crawl out of a
wheelbarrow full of water and dead rabbits. Employees laughed as a
coworker held the rabbit’s head underwater and pulled him out just as
death seemed near, repeating the process again and again until, bored
with the “game,” the employee held the animal’s head underwater long
enough to drown him." These acts are horrific and the "educational experience" provided from the bodies of these abused earthlings is not even close to being worthy of their suffering.
Banning dissection programs is not the same as depriving the students from an important biological lesson, there are plenty of cruelty-free options and programs designed to give the students a comprehensive understanding of the inner workings of organ systems. PETA provides a list of good programs here. These virtual animals provide the students with the option to complete the dissection without the needless death of an animal, as well as provide the more sensitive students with a preferred alternative to the real thing.
I understand that not all schools may be able to afford enough computers for students to run these programs, and that is not the school's fault. I do however, believe that the killing of innocent creatures for the purpose of elementary science is not necessary. Cruelty is not a necessary part of learning, and if anything should be minimalized in the educational system.
Caged dogs unable to move provided by Huffington Post
Yulin's dog eating festival has been around since the 1990's to welcome and celebrate the summer solstice each June. This year, the city of Yulin is expected to slaughter 10,000 dogs for the event. There are many issues that this festival brings forward, and this year all of them have been brought to light and met with more opposition than ever before. (THE IMAGES PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE GRAPHIC)
The first point of concern is that China does not have animal protection laws, it is not illegal to eat dogs or cats in China; in fact, they are a common dish in the country. It is not their usual consumption that is the issue (as I will cover soon.) The local officials in Yulin claim that the festival is illegal and nonexistent, though it has been a reoccurring event for the past 25 years. This puts the blame and responsibility on the public, who are the ones celebrating the festival to begin with. Thus the festival has run unopposed by officials, however protesters have gathered each year to buy dogs off of participants, pray for dogs killed, and attempt to liberate the animals from the slaughterhouses.
The second issue is the health and sanitation, or lack there of, that is applied to the Yulin festival. Accounts of Rabies have increased greatly in Yulin in recent years. Michael Koziol of The Sydney Morning Herald reported that "there had been 338 reported cases between 2002 and 2006, making Yulin one of China's most affected cities." The blood and internal organs of the dogs slaughtered are strewn about slaughterhouse floors, causing even more dangers to health. Not only does this festival harm sentient animals, but it holds dangers to the human participants as well.
This brings us to the reason the festival is being protested: the treatment and acquisition of the dogs used in the celebration. Not all of the dogs used are bred for the festival or donated by willing owners and breeders. Household pets and strays from all over China are swiped from homes and off the streets, stolen from their families and lives to be slaughtered for the entertainment of another city halfway across the country. Children are losing their beloved companions for a horrific bloodbath that steals the lives of thousands of dogs (and cats) yearly.
Finally, we address the treatment of the dogs that are to "participate" in the Yulin festival. The dogs are packed into tiny cages, several in each one, providing no room for movement. Some even die of starvation or dehydration before they are taken out for slaughter. Some are burnt alive, some are boiled. Andrea Dung from the Duo Duo project claimed she witnessed dogs being slaughtered while "still wagging their tails," reports the UK Independent. The slaughterhouses are filled with carcasses of skinned dogs and those being drained of blood with their fur still intact. The conditions are truly horrific and can be described more accurately in pictures than in words. This is a second warning: these photos are graphic.
Dog being boiled alive as tweeted by Ricky Gervais
Dog meat preparation photo from The Guardian
A dog being burned alive, as tweeted by Ricky Gervais
Many will say that it is not my place as a westerner and someone who is not native to Yulin or China to criticize the culture and tradition and demand change. But the westerners are not the only ones protesting. Many Chinese citizens have voiced their disapproval online and at the protests in the city itself.
Times are changing, and traditions must too. In order to evolve, some things must be left behind. We can learn to live in peace but we must stop pointless slaughter like this to do so. If you want your voice to be heard make sure you sign the petition to stop the festival here and tag your photos, tweets, and other social medias with #stopyulin2015. We can change the world and we can save lives if we try together. The Sydney Morning Herald The Huffington Post TIME The Guardian1 & 2
Until school ends in a couple of weeks I will not be able to produce an in-depth and better informed article on the controversy of using real animal corpses in academic dissections, but this video has recently brought the topic to light again. A very reputable charter school in Oklahoma, Harding Charter Preparatory High School, posted a video on their Facebook page of some of their students dancing with dead cats to the meow mix jingle. The cat corpses were to be used for in-class dissections, an activity that the Humane Society and PETA are now aggressively tackling at the school. The Humane Society recommends "the school could switch to plastic models, while PETA said it has software available for schools that wish to use computer models," stated a Huffington Post article.
Harding Charter's Facebook page is currently shut down and the students in the video (who still attend the school) are facing repercussions.
The Huffignton Post article touched briefly on the methods in which the cats and dogs used for dissections are acquired, but I will not go in-depth in that until school is over and I can provide a more comprehensive and detailed post on the acquisition and experimentation of dissection-destined animals.
Kim Kardashian has always been a perpetrator of the fur business, often photographed in very large and expensive real fur coats, and she has always faced retaliation from viewers because of it. However, recently a video filmed at one of her book signings shows activists calling her a murderer and being removed from the store. I understand that fashion is a way for Kim to demonstrate her status, but the fact that she is simply ignoring the suffering behind her coats is very aggravating indeed. She has not issued any statements regarding her coats and does not confront her fans who ask her to change her ways.
The fur industry is brutal, small mammals (like rabbits and minks) are farmed in horrible confined conditions, skinned alive, and then have their bodies dumped in a massive pile. Not only is the industry wasteful, but it is inhumane and murderous.
There is very high quality faux fur on the market and it is becoming very hard to tell the difference, if Kim really wanted to use her fame for the greater good or any reason outside of being famous, she would switch to faux and show her support for her fellow earthlings. Not only would she then be taking some responsibility, but she would also be providing her fans with an affordable and doable action that they could take to help better our planet.
The International Whaling Committee (IWC) has rejected Japan's most recent attempt to reinstate the whaling business under the guise of "scientific research." Japan requested permission to kill 330 minke whales a year for the next 12 years in order to gather information on "understand[ing] the Antarctic marine ecosystem and learn[ing] the whales’
population size required for a return to sustainable commercial hunting," as reported by International Business Times (IBT). The plan was known as Newrep-A, and was a very poor attempt to justify the slaughter of the animals. Japan has appealed for permission to hunt whales repeatedly since their license was revoked last year by the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world.
Children observing a Minke whale head outside of Tokyo (photo from IBC)
Although Japan has announced they intend to resume the hunts in 2015 or 2016, the actual demand for whale meat in the country has been on the decline, as reported by CBC News. Commercial whaling has been outlawed since 1987 and now (actually ever) is definitely not the time to begin again. The planet is in a very delicate place environmentally and whales all over the world have been in trouble since the 80's. Japan does not have the right to slaughter thousands of Minke Whales just as no other nation has the right to slaughter Blue, Humpback, or Grey whales (and all the others). Of course illegal poachers are still running rampant throughout the seas, but at least official governments no longer have the choice to murder these intelligent beings.
I am glad to see that the highest court in the world, the true final say, is prevailing on the side of the whales. People all over are beginning to recognize the true impact we have had on this world and the true power we have to reverse it.
Rejoice! For the minke whales are (legally) protected once again!
Photo from LA Whale Watching
To read the IBT article click here To read the CBC News article click here To read the Guardian article click here To read Japan's proposal, Newrep-A click here
Sergio Gomez, a conservative congressman for the Congress for the National Action Party in Mexico possessed a private zoo filled with 240 rare, and extremely cramped animals. The Tehuacan zoo was receiving complaints at the conditions the animals were living in and the safety of the guests. The animals were crammed into small cages that were vastly out of proportion with their needs. The Mexican government has already banned animals in circuses and recently passed a series of new laws regarding the treatment and rights of animals.
Photo from BBC
Due to the obvious violation of Gomez's zoo, officials took action; raiding the zoo and rescuing over 100 of the 240 held captive. Among those rescued were animals like tigers, lions, buffaloes, monkeys, crocodiles, pumas, bears, and jaguars. The animals had been held in cages stacked precariously on top of one another, causing them to be irritable as well as to experience serious psychological stress. (This set up also put the guests attending the zoo in danger) It is a good sign that even government officials cannot get away with animal cruelty in Mexico and I believe events like this don't get enough coverage. If other governments were to see how seriously the animal ethics laws are taken in other countries, maybe they would follow the example and mandate higher standards for the treatment of non-humans. I am proud of Mexico for standing by their legislation and acting on such a valuable cause. To read the whole BBC article, click here
Berlin's last living mascot, Schnute the bear, has grown old, frail, and ill throughout her 34 years of life. Now, the conditions Schnute has lived through have not been very healthy, as she and her now deceased sister bear, Maxi, were, according to the Berlin ear Alliance, "for 14 hours a day... kept in the inner enclosures of 8.5 by
11 square meters, only during
the animal keepers’ working hours are they allowed on to two tiny
concrete platforms surrounded by a wall mounted with giant iron thorns. Aluminum beer barrels, car tires, and a kind of paddling pool are
supposed to provide distraction." The organization is now offering to put Schnute to sleep due to her psychological strain and apathetic behavior. I'm unsure where I stand on this issue, but I do feel that the situation should be spread.
In the beginning of March the Ringling Bros., a very popular traveling circus, announced they would be retiring all circus elephants by 2018. Other large circus groups such as Barnum & Bailey Circus have followed suit, also announcing the end of the use of elephants for performances. By 2018, many major performers will no longer be using elephants in their shows, instead the gentle giants will be sent to reservations to live out their days in safety and comfort.
India, who has lead the way on several other animal rights moves, has also made progress in the circus elephant department, in fact, the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) has outright banned the use of pachyderms for entertainment. 67 elephants were released from neglected and abused captors when this ban was put in place, all retired to a safer habitat.
As many people know, elephants are extremely intelligent creatures and they suffer greatly psychologically and physically in many of the enclosures they're kept in for human purposes (see Chai and Bamboo). It is so relieving to see major entertainers and even governments are beginning to recognize that animals are not objects but earthlings and are actually taking action for it. This was a major move on the part of the circuses and I am proud of them for doing it.
Oops another video :)
Melaine Joy presents a very logical argument and a very fascinating speech. It is a Ted Talk so it's under 20 minutes for those of you who have tight schedules. Enjoy and spread around!
Beyond Carnism- an idea worth spreading. Let's get that global paradigm a-shifting!
Two farmers from Northern Ireland were jailed recently for incredible animal abuse on their farm. The vet that visited had to put down 75 of the animals which inhabited the farm, mostly cows and pigs. The BBC reported that "an inspection of the farm found animals not being properly fed and watered, and not given dry areas on which to lie," and also found the "carcasses of dead animals" on the farm. The judge overseeing the trial at the Downpatrick Magistrate Court called the scenario "one of the worst cases of cruelty in Northern Ireland or anywhere in these islands."
The animals were held in an extreme state of neglect, to the point where the dead bodies of others were not even noticed or removed from the holdings. This is a despicable act that was committed and I am proud of the government for interfering on behalf of the farm animals. 59 of the inhabitants managed to be saved, but that is still 16 less than the ones that had to be euthanized by a veterinarian because of the conditions they had been kept in. It's heartbreaking that there are still people who are identified as farmers who still treat their animals this way. These beings did nothing to deserve the treatment they received, and it is because of stories like this that I am so proud to be a member of this community. This community truly cares about the planet and helps to spread the word that once we are good to others, we are good to ourselves and societies will benefit.
I have never been a fan of dog/horse races and derbies. The latest discovery made by the ABC television network has only enforced my resolve. The ABC program "Four Corners" did an episode on greyhound racing in South Wales and revealed that trainers were tying live rabbits, piglets, and possums to mechanical lures to get their dogs to run faster. Not only is this practice abominable, it is also illegal in the industry (and in general).
The board of Greyhound Racing NSW has officially disbanded/stepped down for their inability or unwillingness to prevent this behavior. Deputy Premier Troy Grant claimed“The government is committed to ensuring anyone caught blooding their dogs will be kicked out of the sport for life and we will restore the integrity of the industry" when addressed with the problem. Though I personally do not believe the industry to have had much integrity to begin with, it is good that it has ethics that it is willing to uphold.
Gary brings a lot of things to light in this speech. His passion is empowering and his words and images enlightening. I watch this whenever I feel like I need to be reminded of why I need to work my hardest and continue trying my best to open people's eyes to the violent industry around them. He uses both humor and brutal honesty to get his point across. The speech has been translated into several different languages so it is available to a lot of people. Please take the time to watch it. It is an hour long so maybe if you don't have the morning watch this on the weekend or instead of your nightly TV episodes, but do watch it- for everything.
President Barack Obama is pushing to reserve more of the Alaskan coastal plains as wilderness refuge instead of potential oil sources. This is an incredible step for the States considering the environment has been sidelined in politics for a while now. However, Big Business America is angry at the president for trying to make this change because it cuts off their access to POTENTIAL oil sources. The Alaskan coastline is believed to have rich oil deposits, but in that location, no one knows for sure.
If the extra 12.3 million acres Obama is trying to save to indeed stay untouched, it would be a huge accomplishment for the United States and a great benefit to the environment. Species living in the ever-deteriorating way north would be able to remain in their habitats safely. I urge you all to voice your support for Obama's cause, for the polar bears, for the planet.
I don't feel that I have yet acquired enough information to write a comprehensive post about activism in larger chain restaurants, but I did want to bring the Chipotle pork shortage into the spotlight. I've never been a huge fan of Chipotle (I just never really liked their food even when I ate meat), but this article did earn them some of my respect. I learned that Chipotle greatly values the treatment of the livestock they sell to their customers, especially the pigs that go into their pork. When the company discovered that some of the facilities they were receiving pork from had fallen behind the curve, they stopped selling meat from those providers. This has caused a number of Chipotle locations to stop offering pork options on their menus. Chipotle also prides themselves on using organic and non-GMO products, another discovery I made while researching this article. I definitley like where they're headed with their ethics, though of course there is always room for improvement (meant in the least sassy way possible).
Adele Douglass, the executive director of Humane Farm Animal Care (and she has my vote on this one), still holds hope that the government will provide loans to farmers in order to better maintain "sustainable" conditions for the animals.
Chipotle also tries to use humane beef, but finds themselves slipping up on that front more often than pork. I think this is a step forward for consumer-centered society. How big that step is is yet to be determined but I'm very proud of Chipotle for how their holding up.
Photo from One Green Planet
I will start that information accumulation for a larger article though (fingers crossed), however I may not get around to it until closer to the summer time (AP's, Finals, College Prep, etc). To read the whole Huffington Post article, click here
A little while ago, I posted an opinion about Foie Gras (which you can read here) and how I believe the ruling to lift the ban should be overruled. Although I still hold fast to that opinion, I recently stumbled upon an article concerning "ethical foie". I do not recommend eating foie gras in any form for health reasons, but if one does choose to consume it, I would suggest only from a reliable source that does not promote the industrial-agricultural complex.
The Guardian posted an article online this morning about a farm in Spain where the geese are treated properly before being turned into human fodder. The geese on Eduardo Sousa's voluntarily devour the food given to them by the friendly farmer until their liver naturally changes to the state in which it is considered for foie gras. Sousa is very attached and empathetic to his animals, even when describing their demise he says, "We slaughter them by group, if you leave some of them they become very sad, they’re widows. But I’m confident that with the way we do it, the animal doesn’t suffer at all.” Sousa also scorns the path industrial foie gras has taken by saying that "[the foie gras industry] has gone too far...These are animals that have a family, that fall in love, that are intelligent. When you see this animal in a cage with all these machines, you know it is suffering.” As I mentioned before, I am fully supportive of the repeal of the most recent ruling, however, should it stay in place, I believe Sousa is on to something sustainable. The animal's bodies transform to the condition needed naturally, and they are allowed to experience their lives as natural geese; in the sun, with mates and community. No cages needed. Should the California ruling stay in place, this is the next step that needs to be taken- foie gras must be made ethical, or not made at all.
To Eduardo Sousa I say: Gracias, bravo y buen suerte
A story has been in progress since Sunday, January 12, 2014, about a the Dallas Safari Club's auction in which they were selling the license to hunt a single black rhino. If the fault in this sale item doesn't strike you right away, here are a few facts to add some weight to the purchase:
The African Black Rhino is extremely endangered (only 5,055 left in the wild)
Females are pregnant for 15-17 months and calves stay with their mothers for 2-4 years (This means less babies less often)
Black Rhinos live up to 30-35 years in the wild (35-45 in captivity)
More male calves are born than female calves (less babies again)- however males tend to have a higher mortality rate (still not good)
Photo from Wikipedia
Poachers are the biggest threat to the rhino population
Corey Knowlton paid $350,000 at the Dallas Safari Club auction for the license to kill a single black rhino. Knowlton is now receiving death threats from many activists for his intent to lessen the already declining participation that much more. However Knowlton shows no intention of backing down. In no way to I condone or justify the threats targeting the hunter's life, I disagree with the situation entirely. The Safari club should not have the right to sell the life of another creature, especially not one so rare and endangered. There is already a major fine in place for poaching the rhinos, so why should a recreational group from another country be allowed to waive that fee?
Ben Carter, the director of the Safari Club, argues the rhino being targeted is "old, male and non-breeding and is likely to be targeted for removal anyway because it [is] becoming aggressive and threatening other wildlife." Does this impact the value of the rhino's life? Are we the ones to judge the male's practicality in the population? Perhaps we have the data, but we do not possess the empathy.
I do not believe Knowlton is the enemy, I believe he is the embodiment of a larger problem; the lack of value that humans hold for other earthlings. Knowlton, who is scheduled to rob the life of this rare beast, stated that he "deeply care[s] about all of the inhabitants of this planet and [he] is looking forward to more educated discussion regarding the ongoing conservation effort for the Black Rhino." Knowlton has also acknowledged that he sees both sides of the argument, and holds to his reasoning as the fact that he "want[s] to experience a black rhino. [Knowlton] want[s] to be intimately involved with a black rhino." This man does not deserve to die for his actions. Reprimanded? Yes. Fined for the catch if he does harm the animal? Definitely. But death is not the answer.
Knowlton with a recent kill (Photo from Independent.co.uk)
After all, one of the reasons the message for animal rights is often misconstrued or pushed aside is because all the public is shown is radical and violent displays of the cause. I believe Knowlton's license for the rhino hunt should be immediately revoked, no matter how much he spent on it. There are peaceful ways to share experiences with the other beings of this earth, a (peaceful) safari trip to and African country that the rhino inhabits (Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa) could provide a similar connection without the premature loss of energy in that ecosystem. Do not blame Knowlton, but do prevent him, for the sake of a disappearing species.
And no, I don't mean in the Planet of the Apes fashion.
Animals, in a lot of nations in the world, are considered "things" not beings and are therefore deprived of rights and just treatment. However, in December of 2014, an orangutan named Sandra residing the Buenos Aires Zoo in Argetina was granted the legal standing of "nonhuman person." By granting Sandra legal personhood, the court acknowledged that the ape was in psychological pain and required her treatment to improve. She is now on her way to a reserve in Brazil where she can live peacefully. The Baleric Islands of Spain granted personhood to all great apes in 2007, and the Spanish parliament decided that apes should be treated like unaccountable humans (such as children or the mentally incapacitated) and receive the same rights. Swiss law also recognizes all animals as beings and not things, thus providing them with more protection.
Having animals, not just apes (though that is wonderful), recognized as beings is a major step forward on a global scale. Sadly the creatures inhabiting the United States have yet to achieve this status, but I believe as other nations lead by example, the rest will soon follow. Sandra's story is beautiful in that she can now live out her days without the emotional and psychological stress of being a display piece for the masses. I am truly glad that Argentina has allowed her this chance, and that nations like Spain, Switzerland, and India are taking similar steps. Animals are creatures that can experience fear, pain, love, and content; just like humans can. If we ourselves would not want to live in a cage, why should we force others to endure such conditions?
Sandra waving from her zoo habitat in 2010 (Photo by TIME)
As of today, January 8, 2015, the delicacy known as foie gras is no longer banned in California restaurants. For those who may not know, foie gras is made of fatty duck or goose liver, and has been banned in the state since 2004 due largely to how the poultry being consumed were treated. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals state that "workers ram pipes down male ducks’ or geese’s throats two or three times
daily and pump as much as 4 pounds of grain and fat into the animals’
stomachs, causing their livers to swell to up to 10 times their normal
size," in order to achieve the quality meat necessary to prepare the dish. Because of these enlarged livers, many of the birds had trouble standing and, similar to the hens held by the thousands in industrial chicken facilities, turned to ripping out their own and their neighbors' feathers as well as cannibalism. This level of confinement and forced food consumption is akin to torture and very common in industrial meat facilities today. Chefs in California are rejoicing at the lifting of the ban, as they no longer have to skirt the law by "gifting" foie gras to customers instead of "selling" it and can openly provide the food. Animal Rights activists have vowed to appeal, though, according to National Public Radio, it is unclear if the Federal Court will change its ruling.
Personally, I am disappointed in U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson for his decision. I cannot see any long term benefits to the decision for the state, economically, politically, or environmentally. It appears to be another example of the government choosing pro-business over pro-ethics and this is a quality that needs to change. The government can only respond to what the people want if the people participate and I beg of you, dear readers, to do just that.
It is our job as the predominant species on the planet to keep it inhabitable for other species and generations. The ruling of lifting the ban only clears the path for societal morals to sink even lower when concerning "lesser" species. By re-imposing legality on the cruel torture of these birds, we as California, and the nation, are only allowing speciesism to further penetrate our society. If you are living in California (and even if you are not) I implore you to write to or call (any form of contact) your local legislator and plead the case of the poultry, for it is vital to our future well-being to reverse this decision. Foie Gras is animal torture, and it should not be allowed back into our establishments.
