2. Animal Research: Overview Experimentation on animals in laboratories generally falls into one of three categories—toxicity testing, education and training, and basic or applied research. It is a common misconception that most tests on animals are carried out with the aim of finding a cure for cancer, AIDS, or other devastating human diseases. Surveys clearly show that the public accepts animal experimentation only because it is believed to be necessary for medical progress.(1) But according to some national statistics, nearly two-thirds of all animal research has little or nothing to do with curing human diseases or advancing human medicine.(2) The reality is that much of this research is little more than curiosity-driven cruelty.  Wasteful and Unreliable Each year, around the world, millions of birds, cats, dogs, farmed animals, fish, mice, monkeys, rats, rabbits, and other domestic and wild animals are subjected to a wide variety of experiments in the name of biology, psychology, biochemistry, physiology, genetic manipulation, and bio-warfare.  The growing trend toward curiosity-driven research is largely a product of today’s “publish or perish” research environment, in which scientists are recognized for the number of research papers they publish rather than the contribution that each study makes to the advancement of science or medicine. Even animal research that is carried out for “medical purposes” tends to be irrelevant to human health. A PETA investigation revealed the grotesque abuse of animals in laboratories at Columbia University, where baboons were subjected to invasive surgeries and left to suffer and die in their cages without any painkillers, and monkeys were forced to endure surgical procedures in which metal pipes were implanted into their skulls for the sole purpose of inducing stress to study the connection between stress and women’s menstrual cycles. In another Columbia experiment, pregnant baboons were given large doses of nicotine and morphine, had backpacks full of instrumentation strapped to their backs, and were tethered inside metal cages for observation. Their babies underwent surgery while still in utero. One baboon lost 40 percent of her bodyweight and developed a severe bone infection that was left untreated. Please visit ColumbiaCruelty.com for more information. Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. And because animal species differ from one another in many biologically significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal research will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way. The fact that the species most often used in laboratory experiments are chosen largely for nonscientific reasons, such as cost and ease of handling, casts further doubt on the validity of this research. In addition, the results of animal experiments are often so variable and easily manipulated that researchers have used them to “prove”––depending on the source of funding––that cigarettes do cause cancer and that they do not! A careful scientific review of 10 randomly chosen “animal models” of human disease found that they made little, if any, contribution toward the treatment of human patients.(7) Funding and Accountability Through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly—fund animal research. The largest proportion of funding comes from publicly funded government granting agencies such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the U.K. Medical Research Council. In 2004 alone, NIH awarded nearly $27 billion in grants for basic and applied research, a large proportion of which went toward laboratory studies rather than human clinical studies.(8,9) In addition, charities––including the March of Dimes, the American/Canadian Cancer Society, and countless others—use donations to fund experiments on animals. Visit HumaneSeal.org to find out which charities do and which do not fund research on animals. Despite the vast amount of public funds being used to underwrite animal research, it is nearly impossible for the public to obtain current and complete information regarding the animal experiments that are being carried out in their communities or funded with their tax dollars. The U.S. Freedom of Information Act can be used to obtain documents and information from federally funded government agencies and institutions, but private companies, contract labs, and animal breeders are exempt. Secrecy is even more pervasive in the U.K. and Canada, where everything from the protocols that describe animal experiments to the lab inspection reports and the list of registered research facilities is considered “confidential” and off limits to the public.  Oversight and Regulation Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is clearly available. In the U.S., three of the most commonly used species in laboratory experiments (birds, mice, and rats) are specifically exempted from even the minimal protections of the federal Animal Welfare Act.(10) Labs that use only these species are not required by law to provide animals with pain relief or veterinary care, to have an institutional committee to review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or any other entity. Similar gaps exist in the oversight system in Canada, which has no federal legislation governing the care or use of animals in laboratories. In place of such legislation is a loose patchwork of provincial legislation and national guidelines that makes it possible for certain types of laboratories in some provinces to function without any external oversight.(11) Troublesome Trends In the rapidly expanding field of biotechnology, commercial pressures carry the threat of creating even more animal suffering through deliberate genetic manipulation. By inserting or removing genes from an animal’s genetic makeup, experimenters are producing entirely new (“transgenic” or “knockout”) breeds, which they hope to patent, thereby ensuring monopoly rights on the sale of these breeds. Major business applications of this technology include the creation of new animals to be used as “disease models” for research, animals to act as “drug factories” for producing pharmaceuticals and vaccines, and faster-growing animals for factory-farming operations.(12) Another controversial application of genetic-manipulation technology is the creation of “humanized” animals to serve as a source of organs and tissues for transplantation, even though animal-to-human organ transplants have never been successful and have the potential to spread dangerous viruses. Because of the unpredictable nature of genetic manipulation, any “mistakes” that are made can have disastrous consequences for the animals involved. Transgenic pigs who were bred to grow faster and leaner have suffered from arthritis, lethargy, abnormal skull growth, and impaired immune systems.(13) The widely recognized potential for genetic manipulation to result in adverse effects on animals’ health and well-being prompted the Canadian Council on Animal Care to classify these experiments in the second-most severe “category of invasiveness”––with the potential to cause “moderate to severe distress or discomfort.”(14,15) The creation of new strains of genetically manipulated animals is also incredibly wasteful and inefficient. Only between 1 and 10 percent of animals successfully incorporate the foreign genetic material injected into their embryos; those who do not are killed.(16) This means that as many as 99 animals may be killed for every “viable” transgenic animal who is born. As a result, the number of animals subjected to genetic-manipulation experiments in the U.K. since 1990 has increased more than tenfold.(17) Today, one out of every four animals in U.K. labs has been genetically manipulated in some way.(18) The Way Forward Human clinical, population, and in vitro studies are critical to the advancement of medicine; even animal experimenters need them—if only to confirm or reject the validity of their experiments. However, research with human participants does require a different outlook, one that perfectly illustrates the underlying philosophy of ethical science. Animal researchers artificially induce disease; clinical investigators study people who are already ill or who have died. Animal researchers want a disposable “research subject” who can be manipulated as desired and killed when convenient; clinicians must do no harm to their patients or study participants. Animal experimenters face the ultimate dilemma, knowing that their artificially created “animal model” can never fully reflect the human condition; clinical investigators know that the results of their work are directly relevant to people. Remarkably, however, health charities and government research-funding agencies currently devote more funds to animal studies than to investigations of our own species! Human health and well-being can best be promoted by adopting nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and concentrating on the prevention of disease before it occurs, through lifestyle modification and the prevention of further environmental pollution and degradation. The public needs to become more aware and more vocal about the cruelty and inadequacy of the current research system and must demand that its tax dollars and charitable donations no longer be used to fund research on animals. What You Can Do Tell research-funding agencies to kick their animal experimentation habit. Virtually all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. Two of the main sources of funding for animal-based research in North America, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, need to hear that you don’t want your tax dollars used to underwrite animal experiments, whatever their purpose. When writing letters, make the following two points: • Animal experimentation is an inherently violent and unethical practice that I do not want my tax dollars to support. • Funding for research into health and ecological effects should be redirected into the use of epidemiological, clinical, in vitro, and computer modeling studies instead of laboratory experiments on animals. Please ensure that all correspondence is polite: Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director National Institutes of Health Shannon Bldg., Rm. 126 1 Center Dr. (Mail Stop 0148) Bethesda, MD 20892 301-496-8276 (fax) Ez26y@nih.gov Dr. Alan Bernstein, President Canadian Institutes of Health Research 160 Elgin St., 9th Floor Address Locator 4809A Ottawa, ON K1A 0W9 613-954-1800 (fax) abernstein@cihr.ca References 1)“Attitudes Towards Experimentation on Live Animals—Toplines,” MORI, 2004. 2)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “Facts & Figures, CCAC Animal Use Survey, 2001,” 2001. 3)Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Animals Used in Research. Pain and/or Distress—No Drugs Could Be Used for Relief (Category E), All Research Facilities—Federal and Industry, Fiscal Year 2002,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2003. 4)Madhusree Mukerjee, “Speaking for the Animals: A Veterinarian Analyzes the Turf Battles That Have Transformed the Animal Laboratory,” Scientific American, Aug. 2004. 5)Canadian Council on Animal Care, 2001. 6)“Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, 2002,” Home Office, 6 Jun. 2003. 7)Christopher Anderegg, M.D., et al., “A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation,” Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2002. 8)American Association for the Advancement of Science, “NIH Budget Growth Slows to 2 Percent in FY 2004,” 25 Feb. 2003. 9)T.A. Kotchen et al., “NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(2004): 836-43. 10)Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Animal Welfare, Definition of Animal,” Federal Register, 69 (2004): 31513-4. 11)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “Responsibility for the Care and Use of Experimental Animals,” CCAC Guide Volume 1, 1991. 12)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “CCAC Guidelines on Transgenic Animals,” 1993. 13)Michael W. Fox, Superpigs and Wondercorn: The Brave New World of Biotechnology and Where It All May Lead, New York: Lyons & Burford, 1992. 14)Canadian Council on Animal Care, 1993. 15)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “Categories of Invasiveness in Animal Experiments,” 1991. 16)Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, “GM Animals,” postnote, Jun. 2001. 17)Ibid. 18)“Annual Statistics,” Home Office, 6 Jun. 2003.

3.Inside the Fur Industry: Factory Farms Eighty-five percent of the fur industry’s skins come from animals living captive on fur factory farms.(1) These farms can hold thousands of animals, and the practices used to farm them is remarkably uniform around the globe. As with other intensive-confinement animal farms, the methods used on fur factory farms are designed to maximize profits, always at the expense of the animals. Painful and Short Lives The most farmed fur-bearing animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchillas, lynxes, and even hamsters are also farmed for their fur.(2) Sixty-four percent of fur farms are in Northern Europe, 11 percent are in North America, and the rest are dispersed throughout the world, in countries such as Argentina and Russia.(3) Mink farmers usually breed female minks once a year. There are about three or four surviving kits for each litter, and they are killed when they are about half a year old, depending on what country they are in, after the first hard freeze. Minks used for breeding are kept for four to five years.(4) The animals—housed in unbearably small cages—live with fear, stress, disease, parasites, and other physical and psychological hardships, all for the sake of a global industry that makes billions of dollars annually. Rabbits are slaughtered by the millions for meat, particularly in China, Italy, and Spain. Once considered a mere byproduct of this consumption, the rabbit fur industry demands the thicker pelt of an older animal (meat rabbits are killed at the age of 10 to 12 weeks). The United Nations reports that “few skins are now retrieved from slaughterhouses,” and countries such as France are killing as many as 70 million rabbits a year for fur, used in clothing, as lures in flyfishing, and for trim on craft items.(5) Life on the “Ranch” To cut costs, fur farmers pack animals into small cages, preventing them from taking more than a few steps back and forth. This crowding and confinement is especially distressing to minks—solitary animals who may occupy as much as 2,500 acres of wetland habitat in the wild.(6) The anguish of life in a cage leads minks to self-mutilate—biting at their skin, tails, and feet—and frantically pace and circle endlessly. Zoologists at Oxford University who studied captive minks found that despite generations of being bred for fur, minks have not been domesticated and suffer greatly in captivity, especially if they are not given the opportunity to swim.(7) Foxes, raccoons, and other animals suffer equally and have been found to cannibalize each other as a reaction to their crowded confinement. Animals on fur factory farms are fed meat byproducts considered unfit for human consumption. Water is provided by a nipple system which often freezes in the winter or may fail because of human error. Pests and Parasites Animals on fur factory farms are more susceptible to diseases than their free-roaming counterparts. Contagious diseases such as pneumonia are passed from cage to cage rapidly, as are fleas, ticks, lice, and mites. And disease-carrying flies thrive in the piles of rotting wastes that collect under the cages for months. Video footage and photos taken by undercover investigators show animals suffering from severe infections and injuries, untreated and left to die slowly.   Unnatural Habitats Fur factory farm cages are often kept in open sheds that provide little to no protection from wind or harsh weather. Their fur alone is not enough to keep them warm in the winter, and in the summer, minks swelter because they have no water in which to cool themselves. When minks learn to shower themselves by pressing on their drinking water supply nipples, farmers will modify the nipples to cut off even this meager relief. Poison and Pain No federal humane slaughter law protects animals on fur factory farms, and killing methods are gruesome. Because fur farmers care only about preserving the quality of the fur, they use slaughter methods that keep the pelts intact but which can result in extreme suffering for the animals. Small animals may be crammed into boxes and poisoned with hot, unfiltered engine exhaust from a truck. Engine exhaust is not always lethal, and some animals wake up while being skinned. Larger animals have clamps or a rod applied to their mouths while rods are inserted into their anuses, and they are painfully electrocuted. Other animals are poisoned with strychnine, which suffocates them by paralyzing their muscles in painful rigid cramps. Gassing, decompression chambers, and neck-snapping are other common fur-farm slaughter methods. The fur industry refuses to condemn even blatantly cruel killing methods. Genital electrocution, deemed “unacceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) 1993 Panel on Euthanasia, is a fur factory farm killing method that causes animals the pain of cardiac arrest while they are fully conscious. In 1994, Indiana became the first state to file criminal charges against a fur factory farm after PETA investigators documented genital electrocution at V-R Chinchillas. The chinchilla fur industry considers electrocution and neck-breaking “acceptable.”(8) In 1995, one district attorney filed charges against pelt supplier Frank Parsons of Salisbury, Md., for injecting a mixture of rubbing alcohol and weed-killer into the chests of minks. PETA undercover investigators videotaped Parsons using an illegal pesticide, Blackleaf 40, to painfully kill the minks. Would You Wear Your Dog? An undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the United States, reported in a 1998 Dateline NBC piece, revealed that dog and cat fur is a multimillion-dollar industry in Asia and found that coats and toys made with domestic dog fur are being sold in the U.S. “There are no federal laws preventing anyone from importing dog and cat fur into this country,” reported Dateline. “If the imported item costs less than $150, the importer doesn’t even have to reveal what it’s made of.” Dateline footage shows a German shepherd, tail wagging and head stuck in a restraint, moments before he is skinned alive. A cat, crowded in a cage, watches and waits his turn, as one by one, his cagemates are choked, slung up, and hanged just inches away.(9) New legislation outlawed the import or sale of clothing containing dog or cat fur, but the fur still enters the country illegally since it is intentionally mislabeled and can only be detected by expensive DNA testing.  Environmental Destruction Contrary to fur-industry propaganda, fur production destroys the environment. The energy needed to produce a real fur coat from ranch-raised animal skins is approximately 20 times that needed for a fake fur.(10) Nor does fur biodegrade, thanks to the chemical treatment applied to stop the fur from rotting. The process of using these chemicals is also dangerous as it can cause water contamination. About 44 pounds of feces are excreted per mink skinned by fur farmers. Based on the total number of minks skinned in the U.S. in 1999, which was 2.81 million, mink factory farms generate approximately 62,000 tons of manure per year. One result is nearly 1,000 tons of phosphorus, which wreaks havoc in water ecosystems.(11) Fur in Sheep’s Clothing As fur sales decline, sales of shearling—the skin of lambs with the wool attached—have risen. Some fur manufacturers have actually taken to disguising mink as shearling.(12) Many people are unaware of shearling’s origins or that shearling sales are an incentive for sheep ranchers to increase their stock, thereby adding to the plight of sheep (see PETA factsheet “Inside the Wool Industry”).   In Afghanistan, karakul sheep are now raised to produce lambs for the high-end market in “Persian lamb” coats and hats. For “top-quality” lamb skin, the mother is killed just before giving birth and her fetus is cut out. The pelts of the unborn lambs are prized in the fashion world for their silk-like sheen. It takes the skin from an entire lamb to make one karakul hat.(13)  Industry in Decline Austria and the U.K. have banned fur factory farms, and the Netherlands began phasing out fox and chinchilla farming in April 1998.(14) In 2003 there were 307 mink farms in the U.S., down 5 percent from the previous year.(15) In a sign of the times, supermodel Naomi Campbell was denied entry to a trendy New York club because she was wearing fur. Said the club’s owner, “I really love animals, and I wanted us to be the good guys.”(16) Humane Choices Consumers need to know that every fur coat, lining, or item of trim represents the intense suffering of several dozen animals, whether they were trapped, ranched, or even unborn. These cruelties will end only when the public refuses to buy or wear fur. Those who learn the facts about fur must help educate others, for the animals’ sake. For more information, visit FurIsDead.com. References 1)“Facts on Furs,” International Fur Trade Federation, 2000. 2)“To Make 1 of These … You Need 183 of These,” E.S. Magazine, 27 Oct. 2000. 3)“Fur Farming,” International Fur Trade Federation, 2000. 4)“General Livestock,” The Digital Daily, U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury. 5)Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Rabbit: Husbandry, Health and Production, No. 21 (Rome: 1997). 6)“Minks,” The Nebraska Game & Parks Commission . 7)“What Captive Minks Miss Most—Swimming,” Reuters, 28 Feb. 2001. 8)“Standard Guidelines for the Operation of Chinchilla Ranches,” Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Mar. 1998. 9)Dateline NBC, 15 Dec. 1998. 10)Gregory H. Smith, “Energy Study of Real vs. Synthetic Furs,” University of Michigan, Sep. 1979. 11)S.J. Bursian, G.M. Hill, R.R. Mitchell, and A.C. Napolitano, “The Use of Phytase as a Feed Supplement to Enhance Utilization and Reduce Excretion of Phosphorous in Mink,” 2003 Fur Rancher Blue Book of Fur Farming, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University. 12)Joan Verdon, “The Golden Fleece,” Hackensack Record, 21 Sep. 2002. 13)Paul Haven, “Karzai’s Hat Made From Lamb Fetus,” Associated Press, 23 Apr. 2002. 14)Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, “Commission Report Reveals Serious Welfare Problems in Fur Farming,” 20 Dec. 2001. 15)U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Mink,” 15 Jul. 2004. 16)“Fur Flies Out of Fashion,” MX, 13 Sep. 2002, p. 30.

4. Meatless Meals for Dogs and Cats If you have been feeding your companion animals commercial pet foods, you may be jeopardizing their health. Supermarket pet foods are often composed of ground-up parts of animals deemed by U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors unfit for human consumption. The flesh of animals who fall into one of the categories of the four D’s—dead, dying, diseased, or disabled—is what often goes into pet food. Many of these animals have died of infections and other diseases. In all but a few states it is legal to remove unusable parts from chickens and sell them to pet food manufacturers. Most pet foods contain the same hormones, pesticides, and antibiotics that are found in commercial meat products for humans. If you are concerned about your companion animals’ health and about the cruelty of the meat industry, now is the time to stop buying meat-based commercial pet food.   Vegetarian Dogs and Cats Many vegetarians and vegans feed healthful, meatless diets to their companion animals. One remarkable example is that of Bramble, a 27-year-old border collie whose vegan diet of rice, lentils, and organic vegetables earned her consideration by the Guinness Book of World Records as the world’s oldest living dog in 2002.(1) Studies have shown that the ailments associated with meat consumption in humans, such as allergies, cancer, and kidney, heart, and bone problems, also affect many nonhumans. Pet food has also been recalled during mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), scares because of the risk that contaminated meat was processed into the food. One deputy commissioner states that cats especially “are susceptible to BSE.”(2)   The nutritional needs of dogs and cats are easily met with a balanced vegan diet and certain supplements. James Peden, author of Vegetarian Cats & Dogs, developed Vegepet™ supplements to add to vegetarian and vegan recipes. They are nutritionally balanced and also come in special formulas for kittens, puppies, and lactating cats and dogs.   Some people wonder if it’s “unnatural” to omit meat from the diet of a dog or cat. Animals in the wild commonly eat quite a lot of plant matter. Besides, to feed them the meat that they would naturally eat, you would have to serve them whole mice or birds or allow them to hunt for themselves, an option that is unfair to native species of birds and other small animals, since companion cats and dogs have been removed from the food chain and have advantages that free-roaming animals lack. Vegetarian or vegan dogs and cats enjoy their food and good health, and a vegetarian diet for your companion animal is ethically consistent with animal rights philosophy.   Important Supplements Making vegetarian food for dogs is easy because dogs, like people, are omnivorous and usually hearty eaters. Recipes for vegetarian and vegan dogs are available along with the Vegedog™ supplement from James Peden’s company, Harbingers of a New Age. It is important to follow directions carefully. If you make any changes in ingredients, make sure that you do not change the nutritional balance of the recipe. If a dog receives too little protein, calcium, or vitamin D, his or her health could be jeopardized.   Additionally, some dogs need two amino acids called L-carnitine and taurine which are not generally added to commercial dog foods and can be insufficient in homemade dog food as well. A deficiency of these nutrients can cause dilated cardiomyopathy, a serious illness in which the heart becomes large and flabby and can no longer function. This illness generally strikes young or middle-aged dogs who are deficient in L-carnitine or taurine because of breed, size, individual genetic make-up, or diet. Supplemental L-carnitine and taurine can be bought at your local health food store   Cats are often more finicky than dogs, and their nutritional requirements are more complicated. Cats need a considerable amount of vitamin A, which they cannot biosynthesize from carotene, as dogs and humans do. Insufficient amounts may cause loss of hearing, as well as problems with skin, bones, and intestinal and reproductive systems. Cats also need taurine. A feline lacking taurine can lose eyesight and could develop cardiomyopathy. Commercial pet food companies often add taurine obtained from mollusks. James Peden found vegetarian sources of both taurine and vitamin A, plus arachidonic acid, another essential feline nutrient. He then developed veterinarian-approved supplements Vegecat™ and Vegekit™ to add to his recipes. These recipes are probably the healthiest way to feed cats a vegan diet at this time.   Dogs and cats who are eating only cooked or processed food also benefit from the addition of digestive enzymes to their food. These are obtainable through animal supply catalogs and health food stores. Any raw vegetables in a dog’s diet should be grated or put through a food processor to enhance digestibility.   Companies That Sell Vegan Dog and Cat Food   Evolution Diet Dog and cat kibble and canned food, ferret kibble, fish food 651-228-0632   F & O Alternative Pet Products Vegan dog and cat kibble and canned food 1-877-376-9056   Harbingers of a New Age Vegecat™, Vegekit™, Vegedog™, Vegepup™, and digestive enzymes 406-295-4944   Natural Life Pet Products Canned and kibble dog food 1-800-367-2391   Nature’s Recipe Canned and kibble dog food 1-800-237-3856   Newman’s Own Organic vegan dog treats   Pet Guard Canned dog food and biscuits   Wow-Bow Distributors Canned and kibble dog food and biscuits 1-800-326-0230   Wysong Corporation Dog and cat kibble 989-631-0009   If you decide to prepare your own vegetarian dog or cat food, we recommend that you read Vegetarian Cats & Dogs to ensure that you understand the nutritional needs of dogs and cats. Do not rely on this factsheet for complete information. The book has several recipes and helpful hints. If your library or bookstore doesn’t have it, you can order it from Harbingers of a New Age.   Making the Adjustment To help with the adjustment to a vegetarian or vegan diet, start by mixing the vegetarian food in with what you usually serve. Gradually change the proportion until there is no meat left. If your efforts are met with resistance, tempt your animal friends by adding soy milk, nutritional yeast (available at natural-food stores), olive oil, tomato sauce (most dogs love spaghetti!), catnip (for cats), powdered kelp, baby food that doesn’t contain onions or other seasonings, or by serving it warm. Many cats like nutritional yeast and pieces of melon, and most love mashed chickpeas and veggie burgers. If your companion animals are addicted to supermarket pet food, it may take a while for them to adapt.   After switching dogs or cats to a vegetarian diet, monitor them closely to make sure that their new diet agrees with them, especially if they are still puppies or kittens. Watch for chronic gastrointestinal and skin problems, and note any new health problems. Most dogs and cats’ health improves on a vegetarian diet, but occasionally an animal may not thrive, so use common sense if this occurs. References 1) “27-Year-Old Vegan Collie Could Be World’s Oldest Living Dog,” Ananova, 29 Aug. 2002. 2) Steve Mitchell, “FDA May Recall Pet Food Due to Mad Cow,” United Press International, 24 Dec. 2003.   5.Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary Today, hunting, which was a crucial part of survival 100,000 years ago, is nothing more than a violent form of recreation that is unnecessary for the subsistence of the vast majority of hunters.1 Hunting has contributed to the extinction of animal species all over the world, including the Tasmanian tiger2 and the great auk.3 Although less than 5 percent of the U.S. population hunts,4 it is permitted in many wildlife refuges, national forests and state parks, and other public lands. Forty percent of hunters kill animals on public land,5 which means that every year, on the half-billion acres of public land in the U.S., millions of animals who “belong” to the more than 95 percent of Americans who do not hunt are slaughtered and maimed by hunters,6 and by some estimates, poachers kill just as many illegally.7 Conservation and Management Programs Fail To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs—often termed “wildlife management” or “conservation” programs—to boost the number of “game” species so that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses. Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year toward “reduced predator impact,” which involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters more birds to kill.8 The Ohio Division of Wildlife teamed up with a hunter-organized society to push for clear-cutting (decimating large tracts of trees) in Wayne National Forest to “produce habitat needed by ruffed grouse.”9 In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is trying to increase the number of moose for hunters by “controlling” the wolf and bear populations. Grizzlies and black bears have been moved hundreds of miles from their homes—two were shot by hunters within two weeks of their relocation, and others have simply returned to their homes10—and wolves have been slaughtered in order to “let the moose population rebound and provide a higher harvest for local hunters.”11 In the early 1990s, a program designed to reduce the wolf population backfired when snares failed to kill victims quickly, and photos of suffering wolves were seen by an outraged public.12 Colorado is dealing with an overpopulation of elks, but programs aimed at controlling their numbers have led to “mistaken identity” killings of protected moose.13 Although more hunting permits are being issued and tens of thousands of elks are killed every year by hunters, there has been no reduction in the population.14 Nature Takes Care of Its Own If left unaltered, the delicate balance of nature’s ecosystems ensures the survival of most species. Natural predators help maintain this balance by killing only the sickest and weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill any animal they would like to hang over the fireplace—including large, healthy animals who are needed to keep the population strong. Even when unusual occurrences cause temporary animal-overpopulation problems, natural processes quickly stabilize the group. Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature’s way of ensuring that healthy, strong animals survive and maintain the strength of the entire herd or group. Shooting an animal because he or she might starve or become sick is arbitrary and destructive. Sport hunting not only jeopardizes nature’s balance, but also exacerbates other problems. For example, the transfer of captive-bred deer and elk between states for the purpose of hunting is believed to have contributed to the epidemic spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD). As a result, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has given state wildlife agencies millions of dollars to “manage” deer and elk populations.15 The fatal, neurological illness that affects these animals has been likened to mad cow disease, and while the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claim that CWD has no relationship to any similar diseases that affect humans or domesticated livestock, the slaughter of deer and elk is slated to continue.16,17 Another problem with hunting involves the introduction of exotic “game” animals who, if able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to native wildlife and established ecosystems. A group of non-native wild boars escaped from a private ranch and moved into the forests of Cambria County, Pa., prompting that state to draft a bill prohibiting the importation of any exotic species.18 Canned Hunts Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in “canned hunts.” These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with an exotic “trophy.” Canned hunts are becoming big business—there are an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 game preserves in the U.S.19 Ted Turner, who owns more land than any other landowner in the nation, operates 20 ranches where hunters pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and turkeys.20 Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres across. Most of these ranches operate on a “no kill, no pay” policy, so it is in the owners’ best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who know the location and habits of the animals, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying “feeding stations” that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait. Only a handful of states prohibit canned hunting,21 and there are no federal laws regulating the practice at this time, although Congress is considering an amendment to the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act that would prohibit the transfer, transportation, or possession of exotic animals “for entertainment or the collection of a trophy.”22 “Accidental” Victims Hunting “accidents” destroy property and injure or kill horses, cows, dogs, cats, hikers, and other hunters. In 2001, according to the International Hunter Education Association, there were dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries attributed to hunting in the United States—and that only includes incidents involving humans.23 It is an ongoing problem, and one warden explained that “hunters seem unfamiliar with their firearms and do not have enough respect for the damage they can do.”24 A Humane Alternative There are 20 million deer in the U.S., and because hunting has been an ineffective method to “control” populations (one Pennsylvania hunter “manages” the population by clearing his 600-acre plot of wooded land and planting corn to attract deer), some wildlife agencies are considering other management techniques.25 Several recent studies suggest that sterilization is an effective, long-term solution to overpopulation. A method called TNR (trap, neuter, and return) has been tried on deer in Ithaca, N.Y.,26 and an experimental birth-control vaccine is being used on female deer in Princeton, N.J.27 One Georgia study suggested for 1,500 white-tailed deer on Cumberland Island concluded that “herd size in closed populations can be regulated in the field relatively quickly if fertile and sterile animals can be identified … and an appropriate sterilization schedule is generated.”28 What You Can Do Before you support a “wildlife” or “conservation” group, ask about its position on hunting. Groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League, the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund, and many others are pro-sport-hunting or, at the very least, they do not oppose it. To combat hunting in your area, post “no hunting” signs on your land, join or form an anti-hunting organization, protest organized hunts, and spread deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops) near hunting areas. Call 1-800-448-NPCA to report poachers in national parks to the National Parks and Conservation Association. Educate others about hunting. Encourage your legislators to enact or enforce wildlife protection laws, and insist that nonhunters be equally represented on wildlife agency staffs. References 1)National Research Council, “Science and the Endangered Species Act,” Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995: 21. 2)Grant Holloway, “Cloning to Revive Extinct Species,” CNN, 28 May 2002. 3)“Great Auk,” Canadian Museum of Nature, 2003. 4)United States Fish and Wildlife Service, “National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife—Associated Recreation,” Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2001: 5. 5)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 80. 6)United States Department of the Interior, “Public Land Statistics,” Table 1-3, Mar. 2000. 7)“Poaching Is a Serious Crime,” Illinois Department of Natural Resources, May 2003. 8)Bob Marshall, “Is Predator Program Enough?” Times-Picayune, 2 Mar. 2003. 9)Dave Golowenski, “Grouse Numbers Go Up If Trees Come Down,” The Columbus Dispatch, 20 Feb. 2003. 10)“Hunters Shoot Two Relocated Bears,” Associated Press, 9 Jun. 2003. 11)Joel Gay, “McGrath Wolf Kills Fall Short,” Anchorage Daily News, 25 Apr. 2003. 12)Gay, “Governor Takes Heat From Hunters Expecting Aerial Wolf Control,” Anchorage Daily News, 8 Apr. 2003. 13)Charlie Meyers, “Professor’s Prime Advice: Trim the Elk Herds, Now,” The Denver Post, 20 May 2003. 14)Meyers. 15)United States Department of Agriculture, “USDA Makes $4 Million Available to State Wildlife Agencies for Strengthening Chronic Wasting Disease Management,” 15 Apr. 2003. 16)Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, “What is Chronic Wasting Disease?” United States Department of Agriculture, Nov. 2002. 17)CDC Media Relations, “Fatal Degenerative Neurologic Illnesses in Men Who Participated in Wild Game Feasts—Wisconsin, 2002,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Feb. 2003. 18)Judy Lin, “Pennsylvania Worried About Wild Boar Escape,” Associated Press, 17 Mar. 2002. 19)Jeffery Kluger, “Hunting Made Easy,” Time, 11 Mar. 2002. 20)Audrey Hudson, “Greens Cut Turner a Break; Critics Question His Stewardship of Western Land,” The Washington Times, 20 Jan. 2002. 21)National Conference of State Legislatures, “Canned Hunting,” Environment, Energy and Transportation Program, Apr. 2003. 22)H.R. 3464 Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act, Session 107, introduced 11 Nov. 2001. 23)“Hunter Incident Clearinghouse,” International Hunter Education Association, 2001. 24)Tom Harelson, “1998 Deer Gun Season Report,” Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 8 Dec. 1998. 25)Andrew C. Revkin, “States Seek to Restore Deer Balance,” The New York Times, 29 Dec. 2002 26)Roger Segelken, “Surgical Sterilization Snips Away at Deer Population,” Cornell News, 19 Mar. 2003. 27)“Princeton’s Deer Hunt Coming to a Premature End,” Associated Press, 21 Mar. 2003. 28)James L. Boone and Richard G. Wiegert, “Modeling Deer Herd Management: Sterilization Is a Viable Option,” University of Georgia, 1994. 6.Fishing: Aquatic Agony Like the animals many people share their homes with, fish are individuals with their own unique personalities. Dive guides have been known to name friendly fish who follow divers around and enjoy being petted, just like dogs or cats. Yet billions of fish die every year in nets and on hooks—some are destined for human consumption, many are tortured just for “sport,” and others are nontarget victims who are maimed or killed simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Fish Can Communicate, Make Tools, Think, and Feel Pain According to Culum Brown, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh, fish have cognitive abilities that equal and sometimes even surpass those of nonhuman primates; they can recognize individuals, use tools, and maintain complex social relationships.(1) In Fish and Fisheries, biologists wrote that fish are “steeped in social intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation, punishment and reconciliation, exhibiting stable cultural traditions, and co-operating to inspect predators and catch food.”(2) Many species of fish learn how to avoid predators by watching experienced fish, and according to Dr. Jens Krause of the University of Leeds, while some fish live in large hierarchical societies and others have smaller family units, all rely on these “social aggregations,” which “act as an information center where fish can exchange information with each other.”(3) Fish communicate through a range of low-frequency sounds—from buzzes and clicks to yelps and sobs. These sounds, most of which are only audible to humans with the use of special instruments, communicate emotional states such as alarm or delight and help with courtship.(4) Atlantic croakers, for example, are so named because they croak when they are frightened.(5) Scientists have only recently discovered the alto croaking sounds made by a rare fish believed to be similar to the deep-sea blue grenadier, a tiny fish who lives beyond the continental shelves and is in danger of being fished to extinction. The fish’s call is believed to be necessary for mating, since there is no light where they live.(6) While fish do not always express pain and suffering in ways that humans can easily recognize, scientific reports from around the world substantiate the fact that fish feel pain. Researchers from Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities studied the pain receptors in fish and found that they were strikingly similar to those of mammals and concluded that “fish do have the capacity for pain perception and suffering.”(7) A study conducted by the Roslin Institute examined rainbow trouts’ reactions to “noxious stimulation” and concluded that fish “experience suffering.”(8) Anglers often claim that fish do not feel pain, yet they go to great lengths to hide their hooks with bait and lures, knowing that even fish who have already experienced being hooked and released will continue to seek out food, and those who do get hooked will fight to stay alive. Hooked fish struggle because of fear and physical pain. Once fish are brought out of their environment and into ours, they begin to suffocate. Their gills often collapse, and their swim bladders can rupture because of the sudden change in pressure. Some deepwater species, such as red snapper, are particularly affected by the dramatic changes in pressure that occur when they are pulled to the surface. One scientist says, “The physiological stress is enormous. Even if they swim off, a lot of those fish will be easy prey because they’re in a stunned condition when they’re released.”(9) “Sport” Fishing While the numbers are down from 10 years ago, more than 34 million people still went fishing in 2001, spending billions of dollars on their “hobby.”(10) According to a Florida State University study, sport fishers are responsible for killing almost 25 percent of overfished saltwater species.(11) Many trout streams are so intensively fished that they are subject to catch-and-release regulations, requiring that all fish caught be released; the aquatic animals in these streams are likely to spend their short lives being repeatedly traumatized and injured. One fisheries expert adds that catch-and-release victims “could be vulnerable to predators, unable to swim away, or if nesting, not capable of fending off nest raiders. Some guarding males could in fact abandon the nest.”(12) Biologist Ralph Manns points out that fish such as bass are territorial, and once caught and released, these fish may be unable to find their homes and “be fated to wander aimlessly.”(13) Fish aren’t the only victims of sport fishing. Water birds can get their feet caught in fishing lines or snag their wings in the invisible filaments. Unable to escape, they die from dehydration or starvation. One Rookery Bay, Florida, biologist who has seen egrets hanged by their necks and pelicans mortally wrapped up in fishing line laments that “[t]hese were all birds that were going to raise a family.”(14) Ospreys sometimes use discarded fishing line in their nests, and both parents and their young have been found entangled in it or impaled on fishing hooks.(15) A U.K. study found that 3,000 swans are victimized in angling-related incidents every year.(16) One out of every five manatee rescues conducted in the 1980s and ’90s was related to fishing-line entanglement, and during a four-year span, at least 35 dolphins died from injuries that they sustained from being tangled in fishing line in the Southeast.(17) Along with boat strikes and discarded plastic, fishing line is one of the top three threats to sea animals, according to Virginia Marine Science Museum officials.(18) Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture The average U.S. consumer eats more than 15 pounds of fish every year. To meet this demand, commercial fishers reel in more than 9 billion pounds of fish and shellfish annually, and the aquaculture industry raises more than 800 million pounds per year.(19) Commercial fishers use vast factory-style trawlers the size of football fields to catch fish. Miles-long nets stretch across the ocean, capturing everyone in their path. These boats haul up tens of thousands of fish in one load, keeping the most profitable and dumping the rest (such as rays, dolphins, and crabs) back into the ocean. Fish are scraped raw from rubbing against the rocks and debris caught in the nets with them. Then they bleed or suffocate to death on the decks of the ships, gasping for oxygen and suffering for as long as 24 hours.(20) Millions of tons of fish who are considered to be “undersized” are left to die on the decks or are tossed back into the ocean, where they usually die soon afterward.(21) Hundreds of thousands of marine mammals die annually from commercial-fishing practices.(22) Some fishing boats use gill nets, which are believed to be responsible for the majority of incidents involving the accidental netting of marine mammals. These nets ensnare every animal they catch, and fish are further mutilated when they are extracted from the tangled nets. Longline fishing—in which 40 miles of monofilament fishing line dangles thousands of individually baited hooks to catch tuna and swordfish—is believed to be responsible for the deaths of 250,000 loggerhead and 60,000 leatherback turtles every year.(23) Because of the industry’s indiscriminate practices, the population of the world’s large predatory fish, such as swordfish and marlin, has declined 90 percent since the advent of industrialized fishing.(24) Several species of sturgeon are endangered, but some commercial fishers still capture them for the caviar industry because, according to a fisheries management specialist, “they don’t care if they’re endangered. They want the money.”(25) In the Mediterranean, one big tuna “can be worth as much as the most expensive Mercedes-Benz,” according to a United Nations official, so—despite the dwindling number of bluefins—little can be done to prevent private fleets of commercial fishers from killing the few fish who remain.(26) Cod stocks are expected to be wiped out by 2020.(27) Aquaculture accounts for close to one-third of the fish consumed in the United States, along with more than half the salmon, nearly all the catfish and trout, and about two-thirds of the shrimp.(28) Thousands of fish are raised in tubs or are confined to roped-off areas of the sea or ocean where each animal has just a bit more room than the space taken up by his or her body. Farmed fish consume 12 percent of all commercially caught fish, as well as a steady diet of pesticides, antibiotics, and herbicides.(29) Fish and crustaceans who could live for years in the ocean live only a few short months on fish farms. Eating Fish Is Hazardous to Your Health Like the flesh of other animals, fish contains excessive amounts of protein, fat, and cholesterol, and 6.5 million Americans are believed to be allergic to it.(30) Seafood also causes more food poisoning than any other type of food and is responsible for 37 percent of all food-borne illnesses in the U.S.(31) The flesh of fish (including shellfish) can accumulate extremely high levels of carcinogenic chemical residues, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), thousands of times higher than that of the water in which they live.(32) The flesh of farmed salmon has seven times more PCBs than the flesh of wild-caught salmon.(33) Levels of mercury exceed government standards for safety in one-third of the nation’s lakes and in one-quarter of its riverways.(34) The New England Journal of Medicine asserts that fish “are the main if not the only source of methyl mercury,” which has been linked to cardiovascular disease, fetal brain damage, blindness, deafness, and problems with motor skills, language, and attention span.(35,36) Consumer Reports noted that canned tuna has been found to contain “levels of mercury high enough to pose a risk,” yet a Now With Bill Moyers report indicated that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only tests about a dozen cans of tuna for mercury every year and doesn’t expect the tuna industry to test its own product.(37,38) Because of mercury levels in the flesh of marine animals, the Environmental Protection Agency and the FDA warn women of child-bearing age and children to refrain from eating fish such as shark, swordfish, and king mackerel and to consume fewer than 12 ounces a week of other fish flesh.(39) Even the active ingredien