It's truly troubling to think that in this day and age, the number of animals used in these inherently flawed experiments may be increasing. At the very least, we need much greater transparency. Our tax dollars pay for these animal experiments, and taxpayers deserve to know the truth.
The beauty of fashion objects often stand in harsh contrast to the ugliness of how they're made. And that ugliness is avidly avoided, intentionally hidden beneath layers of expensive marketing, or -- in the case of something like fur -- transformed into a transgressive indulgence.
There is no way in our complex, challenging, and truly magnificent world, that humans can be left out of solutions for improving the lives of other animals, although we are so often the cause for conflict with them and for trumping their interests in favor of ours.
Could you imagine having to give up your pet because you couldn't afford to spay or neuter it? Sadly, in underserved communities in and around the greater L.A. area, the biggest obstacles to spaying and neutering pets -- which is critical to preventing animal homelessness, suffering, and unnecessary euthanasia -- come down primarily to issues of economics and geography.
We - as a human race, even as an American people - have plenty of resources to conserve nature both for its sake and ours. We are short on willpower, not resources.
By caring for animals as well, we do not love human beings less. We actually can love them better because our altruistic love grows stronger and vaster.
Since 1993, the images of suffering brown eyes have haunted those of us in Animals Asia who have made investigations of over one hundred bear bile farms across Asia.
Should non-violent animal rights activists really be charged as "terrorists"? The fur lobby says yes. Common sense and the Constitution say otherwise.
As I methodically and meticulously filled out the multi-page adoption form, diligently answering questions ranging from where my dog would sleep and what food I would feed her, it never for a moment crossed my mind that my application would be denied. Why would it?
If you've been a vegan long enough, chances are that you've found that the social implications of veganism can be just as complicated and frustrating as figuring out what you can eat on a day-to-day basis. As popular as veganism has become, there still lies an inherent mystique about it.
We surely can do better in protecting all of these sentient beings, and the time is now to amend, write, and stringently enforce legislation for better protecting them and the millions of other animals from being brutalized in "the name of science, food, entertainment, and fashion."
Famous people make easy and sometimes effective targets for our message. But what was the message here? That canned hunting is worse than other hunting?
Virginia's Attorney General has announced a new animal law unit in response to the refusal to prosecute PETA for some of its workers allegedly stealing and killing a little girl's dog.
Finally an ad that shows the truth about breeding. Animal advocates are protesting this? They should have produced it.
Is it possible to consume animal protein and still lay claim to a modicum of concern for animal welfare? I don't propose to answer that question, merely to explore the opportunities in our current social construct to make the attempt.
This week, The New York Times published a comprehensive investigation into deplorable animal treatment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC). It's appalling that such activities -- conducted with the goal of helping a private-sector industry turn a higher profit -- are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.