Vegan Companion Animals

A popular subject of debate within the vegan community is that of imposing veganism on carnivorous and omnivorous companion animals such as dogs and cats. Living with meat eating animals presents a unique moral dilemma for the vegan: is it acceptable to support the exploitation and killing of animals to support the life of another animal? This problem is so preeminent for the vegan community that a variety of vegan pet food products for dogs and cats have been produced - and do indeed successfully sell.

Yet feeding dogs & cats a vegan diet raises other moral questions for the conscientious vegan. For one, is it truly healthy to feed these animals a vegan diet despite claims of complete nutrition posed by the companies that produce such products? And do we have the right to impose our ethics on another species, to such an extent that we alter basic fundamentals like their natural dietary preferences?

There are good ethical arguments to be made on both sides of the coin. Animal nutritionists - and I would be inclined to agree - point out that an unnatural diet heavy in vegetable matter is largely the reason why dogs and cats have so much diet related illness to begin with. For an obligate carnivore like the cat, vegan diets present certain health obstacles, and while it would stand to reason that fortified nutrition should solve these issues, I am yet to see any lengthy peer-reviewed studies on the validity of vegan diets for felines OR canines.

AAFCO does not require extensive trials before approving foods. There is no requirement to study the life-long effects of a given diet. What's more, AAFCO standards deal with animal nutrition the way we've approached human nutrition. We cut everything down into percentages while ignoring the importance of nutrient context and nutrient interactions. Food science is so complex that it is constantly evolving, and the more we research, the more one thing becomes glaringly apparent: processed diets are poor nutrition - for humans and other animals.

The best nutrition for a dog or cat, point blank, is a diet based in varied whole animal proteins, and for dogs, some plant proteins as well. Ideally an obligate carnivore like the cat should be feeding on whole prey items, not pellets or canned foods. Ideally an omnivore like the dog should have varied nutrition from plant and animal sources, not a limited scope of one or two types of protein mixed with an abundance of soy, corn, and wheat. And neither animal should have a diet dominated by vegetable products alone.

Despite this, it is inarguable that feeding meat to dogs and cats conflicts with vegan moral philosophy. There is very little room for grey area on the matter of animal exploitation, and meat is the product of animal exploitation regardless of if it is fed to those on two legs or those on four. For the dedicated vegan, imposing veganism on one's dog or cat seems like the only viable option.

I, however, would challenge the assumption that the only options are to support the meat industry or feed a vegan diet to dogs and cats. My solution is a simple one: vegans should adopt animals that are naturally herbivorous by nature. The third most populated companion animal in the United States is the rabbit. Rabbits are strict herbivores by nature, and unlike dogs and cats, which generally receive proper care in typical homes due to their elevated status as "members of the family," most rabbits short of those kept by enthusiasts receive improper care - even in the homes of well meaning "animal lovers." Qualified adopters are sorely needed for rabbits, and vegans are the perfect candidates to fill these shoes.

Rabbits are hardly the only naturally herbivorous companion available to vegans. Parrots and Green Iguanas are two additional species with exponential surrender rates to exotic animal rescues and shelters, and both thrive on a vegan diet. Both also require highly dedicated, specialized care - perfect for someone with a high regard for animal well being like a vegan. Once reared in captivity these exotic animals are not candidates for return to the wild, so homes willing to provide for their extensive needs as non-domesticated animals are the only option - an option we can offer.

There are also several vegetarian-leaning omnivores that do well on a vegan diet. Omnivores exist in a spectrum; there are animals that consume predominantly plant matter and enrich their diets with animal products, and there are animals that consume predominantly animal matter and enrich their diets with plant matter. Canines fall into the latter category; animal products are a critical part of their nutrition and indeed most thrive even in the absence of plant matter. Their opposites can thrive on an absence of animal matter and require plant matter as critical nutrition. These animals are far better candidates for a vegan diet than a creature like a dog.

Rodents are primarily granivores, and while granivores by nature consume some animal matter (generally invertebrates) when available, they are very capable of adapting to a vegan diet with plant-based protein items. Mice, rats, hamsters, and gerbils have a very low standing in society and are frequently subjected to abuse and exploitation. They can easily be fed a balanced vegan diet to maintain health and make wonderful companions for vegans who live in cramped quarters. Guinea pigs, degu, and chincillas are primarily grazing rodents with no need for animal matter in their diet, and also are in need of adopters.

Finally, vegan homes may be a good option for some of the meekest creatures on earth: humble fish and invertebrates, some of the most ignored and mistreated creatures on the planet. There are many algae-grazing, herbivorous fish species that a vegan may open their home to, and a quick browsing of any pet placement classifieds will show that fish routinely are want for good homes. Though less commonly in need of rescue and adoption, exotic invertebrates such as tropical millipedes and cockroaches are also sometimes offered for adoption, and make for fascinating companions.

In short: it is our duty and obligation as vegans to avoid the exploitation of animals whenever possible, but it is also our duty to protect the health and well being of any companion animals we elect to share our homes with. A vegan diet for a dog or cat is of questionable integrity, particularly in the case of the latter, so a very appropriate compromise for a vegan who wishes to welcome a rescued animal into his or her home is to seek out a naturally herbivorous species. There is no shortage of vegan-friendly companion animals in rescues and shelters across the country. Please, adopt an herbivore.


Image (c) Cats & Rabbits & More

Farm Sanctuary Hoe Down '08

This blog is going to be a bit of a departure for the typical "Ren reads a current event and spouts off about it." I think it's important to occasionally immerse one's self in a positive environment and focus on the good being done by the movement rather than the bad being done by the opposition. So, I'd like to reflect on Farm Sanctuary's Hoe Down, which I just came home from after a truly fabulous weekend.

I admit I was a bit reticent to attend; I've interned, volunteered, and stayed at farm sanctuary numerous times in the past but never really felt inspired to get involved in what seemed like more 'hokey' elements of their fundraising. However, this year being my tenth "veganiversary," I felt it only appropriate to do a little celebrating. With the state of the economy, nothing is much cheaper than camping out at an inexpensive event with free food and entertainment, so I purchased tickets not really knowing what the Hoe Down entailed (aside from tales of drunken dance parties, of course).

Yes, there was an element of drunken vegan dancing in a barn on Saturday night, but more importantly, Saturday and Sunday were packed with magnificent educational presentations with reputable guest speakers. Gene Baur, Paul Watson, and Sue Coe were among some of the big names, with other groups representing everything from the infamous PETA to smaller grass roots organizations. The topics were equally variable, ranging from nutrition to contemporary environmental issues to the challenge of fighting factory farming and promoting veganism in the face of the "happy meat" craze without sending mixed messages. The theme of this year's hoe down was activism, so there was also a great wealth of empowering information on everything from grass roots to federal lobbying. It was pleasant to see a consistent message of "be an activist in a way that works for you" rather than some of the cookie cutter tactics pushed by other groups.

Paul Watson's discussion was truly magnificent; he is well reputed as a powerful speaker but seeing him in action was quite grand. He is one of very few people in the animal advocacy sector willing to speak passionately about issues pertaining to fish, and so long as they are to have so few advocates, I'm glad that he's the one doing it. Aquaculture is truly the rapidly emerging face of the new wave of factory farming, yet virtually no one cares about fish issues - including groups that advocate strongly for other farmed animals. I was dually pleased to see him draw the parallel between industrial fishing a bushmeat, for people who express outrage over the killing of terrestrial wildlife for food (in countries in desperate need of the sustenance and money no less) seem to express no concern about the massive, unsustainable, and inhumane slaughter of billions of wild fish every year. Even in a crowd of vegans, I saw shocked faces when Watson mentioned some of the figures on fish exploitation.

I am embarrassed to say that I can't recall his name, but there was a fantastic and sadly overlooked speaker discussing nutrition and foraging who was quite magnificent. It is rare for me to learn anything at a vegan outreach program, but the information he presented on the link between dairy and reproductive cancers was much more in depth and better articulated than anything I'd previously read. He also was unafraid to call out vegans on poor nutrition practices like a predominantly soy based diet, which is often taboo in the vegan community with its love affair with the much over-rated bean. And his foraging lesson was very simple, basic, but based on the audience response eye opening and effective. With the price of food rising and quality of store bought leafy greens increasingly inferior due to the use of chemical fertilizers, being able to obtain extremely nutrient dense meals for free from common, easily available sources is an invaluable resource.

Suzie was, of course, magnificent as always. Farm Sanctuary took on some extremely lofty rescue ambitions this year, and despite working around the clock to save emaciated, pregnant sheep and sun burned, pneumoniatic sows, she was just as spirited and positive as ever. I am consistently impressed by the fact that she is able to maintain personally connected to each and every animal in the sanctuary; she knows each animal by name, is in touch with their needs and personalities, and seems to have an endless abundance of love. Her energy more than anything else seems to help connect people to the animals; though we as vegans always talk about seeing animals as individuals, I find that the rescues are sometimes transformed into mere symbols. Suzie makes sure that they go from being "pig rescued from Iowa" or "cow that jumped a fence" to "[name], a great mother who loves playing with her piglets and getting belly rubs." One of the most powerful moments of the whole Hoe Down, IMO, was when Suzie was talking about one of the pigs at rescue where a vet was encouraging her to euthanize due to the animal's hoof infection since pigs are, to most livestock vets, simply production units. She said something very simple to the tune of "But she's not a product, she's Rosebud."

I could prattle on and on about each speaker, the fantastic food, the great cuddle time with the animals, and the social networking opportunities, but this is getting awfully verbose as it is. So, I'd just like to say in closing that I strongly suggest anyone and everyone to consider taking in next year's Hoe Down if time and funding permits; it is a great way for old activists to rejuvenate, newcomers to familiarize with the movement, and anyone to have a great time. In the mean time, do consider donating to Farm Sanctuary's emergency fund; virtually every sow rescued from Iowa (that's sixty nine of 'em!) was pregnant and/or suffering from costly health conditions. They could really use a helping hand for the huge expenses of this one of a kind rescue effort.

Killing Sea Lions to Protect Fish (So We Can Kill Fish?)

I was reading an article today that made me want to collectively bitchslap the human race. It was about recent illegal sea lion killings thought to be tied to groups protecting salmon. The sea lions apparently "threaten" salmon populations (depleted and far more frequently threatened by overfishing and dams), and are thus trapped and relocated when they hunt in areas where humans would like to eat said salmon. Someone apparently decided that stealing food from the mouths of sea lions by dumping them elsewhere wasn't sufficiently speciesist, so he or she shot the trapped sea lions.

The article was ripe with language suggesting that the sea lions, not the humans competing with them for salmon, were the gluttons in the equation and had to be removed to protect fish. This much I could expect, especially since modern conservation often demands that we punish natural predator/prey relationships due to decimated populations of one or the other to prevent extinctions. However, I couldn't help but laugh that it was suggested that these actions, though illegal, "protect" salmon.

Salmon shouldn't need "protecting" from sea lions. Sea lions and salmon used to have a pretty good deal; some of the salmon get eaten, meaning more reproductive success for those that don't, and of course obvious benefits to the sea lions. When people decided that fish was the new healthy fad meat and started wiping out the salmon, it suddenly became our interest to "protect" the salmon from those mean ol' sea lions, having the effrontery to think that they, not us, were damaging the populations.

Salmon preservation today has NOTHING to do with protecting salmon for their inherent value as a species, for their role in the natural food web, their importance to ecosystems, or just the fact that they're pretty nifty and it would be nice if they didn't go extinct. It is strictly about making sure that we can eat them in the future, regardless of if that relationship is a healthy one for salmon and their natural predators and prey. This is not questioned at all; we only take issue with the moral implications of how to deal with cute and fuzzy things that compete with our appetites.

Arguably any protection is better than none, and I understand (though strongly disagree with) the perspective of people who suggest that the best way to preserve a species is to permit exploitation since people will want to keep populations sufficient for future exploitation. However, that isn't the focus here: the point is that we are killing one species to promote future killing of another species and call this conservation when time and time again this methodology has resulted in only further imbalance to ecosystems - not to mention the utterly unethical murder of other animals.

A better solution to species preservation would be not killing the salmon in general, which would also eliminate the need for ethical qualms with killing competitor species (an act facilitated solely by the competition of humans with sea lions). Basically, the "management" style of species conservation is inherently flawed and morally inexcusable, as we've seen exemplified with similar efforts involving land predators and hoofstock. Conversely, attempts to restore natural balances through non-fatal means (such as reintroductions or strict limits against hunting) generally have more favorable results not just for one species, but the ecosystem as a whole.

On a more personal note, I for one would love to see people respond with as much outrage about the deaths of millions of salmon at the hands of man as they did the deaths of a few sea lions.

This relationship is the one that needs protection.

Scapegoating Sharks

Recently, a great white shark killed a man off the coast of California, spurring mass hysteria and cries to track down and kill not only the shark implicated in the "attack," but sharks in general. Posing an "unacceptable threat to human safety," many Americans would like to see sharks, alligators, bears, and other species occasionally implicated in attacks on man eliminated. Since 1990, sharks have killed a whopping 12 people in the United States, making them very possibly the least threatening animal to human safety despite being among the most feared. In reading responses to news articles that often had people ranting about a "need" to eradicate sharks due to their inherent danger to human safety, it occurred to me that in our blind terror, we were forgetting about a much more dangerous animal.

The species in question kills roughly 50,000+ humans directly in the US every year, another 26,000+ through vehicular collisions, and a startling 14,000+ through infectious disease. Non-direct human deaths through other activities of this species kill many more. Ready to grab your rifles and wipe out these deadly beasts? Good. Turn your gun around and shoot yourself, because humans result in more human death than any natural predator in existence. 20,000 through manslaughter and murder, 30,000 through suicide, 26,000 in automobile accidents, and 14,000 through infectious disease - and that does not begin to account for self-induced deaths caused by substance abuse, sedentary lifestyle, or non-vehicular accidents.

The ocean is not human habitat, it is wildlife habitat. By entering the ocean, you do so at your own educated risk; without a weapon, humans rank pretty low on the food chain, and even when wild animals pose no predatory threat to us, plenty are deadly through defense mechanisms and disease alone. This is inevitable. Any interaction with wildlife thus holds the potential for harm or death, and that detriment can not be blamed on the species when your invasion is causative.

I have noticed virtually no coverage nor emotional outrage for the number of sharks being killed by humans annually. For shark fin soup alone, a wasteful Asian delicacy, it is estimated that 100 million sharks lose their lives. As slow reproducing and maturing animals, most shark populations are already in significant decline. This suggests that those calling for the extinction of sharks may soon get what they desire; most species are considered critically endangered, yet due to phobic human attitudes, few have been afforded any protection from exploitation. 100 million deaths annually for a single dish (non-inclusive of shark fishing for other reasons or shark bycatch) vs. 5-10 deaths annually (global)... and who is threatening whom?

What we should examine are risk factors associated with shark attacks and shark deaths, so that we might prevent the majority - for the sake of humans and sharks alike. Recently, an Austrian tourist was killed free-swimming in water deliberately baited with meat and blood to attract sharks. This is a rare (and stupid) example of activities that should be avoided to prevent shark attacks. More commonly, fatal shark attacks occur when people are surfing or body boarding - it is thought that the silhouette of a human on a board looks like an ailing seal resting at the surface. Divers are also targets, probably due to the fact that they are essentially wearing a seal suit in the middle of shark territory. That is not to say that such activities should be stopped, but that we should be mindful of heightened risks and act accordingly, such as taking shark spottings seriously and perhaps avoiding such activities at times where shark populations are projected to be high in a given area.

Absolutely, it is tragic when any human life is lost for any reason (though we seem to make exceptions for war and corporal punishment). However, it is a childish knee-jerk reaction to lash out at entire species for a human death. As a species granted disproportionate power over others, it is our duty to be merciful, not vengeful.