This week's New York Times Magazine cover story is about a beluga whale who has escaped from captivity. And today's Los Angeles Times covers the Korean dog meat ban with far more thoughtfulness than we have seen from most outlets.
---
The New York Times Magazine, which is released every week as a section of the Sunday New York Times, this week has a photo of a beautiful beluga whale on the cover and the caption, "How do you solve a problem like Hvaldimir?"
The in-depth story, on page 22, tells us that the whale, who admirers have named Hvaldimir, apparently escaped from the Russian Navy. The piece follows efforts to rehome him in some sort of whale sanctuary, as the open seas are dangerous for a lone beluga and his comfort with humans is also dangerous:
"In the years since Hvaldimir first entered the global spotlight, the very qualities that make him so endearing — his intelligence, curiosity and charisma — have put him in perpetual danger. While traveling along the coasts of Norway and Sweden, he has inadvertently hooked himself on fishing lines and suffered multiple gashes caused by boat strikes. Incessant chewing of ropes and chains has worn his teeth to nubs. Overzealous spectators have swarmed him for photos, prodded him with brooms and thrown rocks in his vicinity to draw his attention. Some Norwegians have threatened to seek warrants to shoot and kill the beluga because he has damaged salmon farms or other underwater structures."
The article imparts information with sensitivity:
"Belugas were once thought to have a maximum life span of about 50 years. The latest research suggests that they can live for close to a century. Hvaldimir’s physical characteristics indicate that he is probably a young adult between 12 and 20 years of age. Had he remained in the wild from birth, he would have spent his life traveling the seas with his kin in groups of two to 10 and herds of more than 1,000; communicating through complex vocalizations that scientists have only begun to decode; and learning how to be a whale from his elders. He would have had a family, a dialect and the beluga equivalent of a name — a signature contact call — rather than another species’ pun. Instead, he was probably abducted as a calf, severed from cetacean culture and forced to undergo military training in exchange for food. In all likelihood, he either escaped from a damaged sea pen or was accidentally separated from the navy during a training exercise."
And we read:
"Hvaldimir ostensibly offers our species a chance at redemption: a formerly captive whale, already moving freely through the ocean, requiring only some redirection to reunite with his kind. But the enormity of what we have done to him and so many other sentient beings like him severely complicates — and in some cases prohibits — such a reversal. Hvaldimir is so far displaced from his origins — geographically, ecologically, culturally — that it’s not clear whether a homecoming is still achievable.
And my favorite lines:
"Yet the closer we have pulled such animals toward us, the more difficult it has become to deny the torment that our proximity inflicts. Perhaps the purest act of love is to leave them alone in the first place."
The article is well worth reading, or listening to like a 35-minute podcast, and sharing. I can share this gift link with you from DawnWatch.
Most importantly, it is well worth sending off a quick note of thanks to the New York Times Magazine, which takes letters at magazine@nytimes.com and needs to see your full name, address and phone number, for verification purposes. Just a few lines, offering thanks for the article and commenting on whatever aspect moved you most, will be perfect.
--------------------------------
The Los Angeles Times was slower than most media outlets to get into the Korean dog farming ban but has done so more thoughtfully than most. The article, on page A2, Monday, January 15, is titled, "Ban on dog meat reflects a shift in South Korea." Penned by Max Kim, it opens:
"Long viewed by some South Koreans as a food that could revive one’s energy in the summer months, dog meat has officially met its end as a commodity in the East Asian nation.
"A new law, which takes effect in 2027, prohibits further breeding, slaughter and sale of dogs as meat. It was approved in a near-unanimous vote of South Korea’s National Assembly last week.
"Hailed by local and international animal rights groups, the ban will end a long and oftentimes bitter debate that has tracked decades of social change during which South Korea has seen its global profile explode — and the practice, considered morally objectionable by much of the world, become an increasing public relations liability."
Our hierarchal attitude to animals is summed up nicely, though perhaps not intentionally, as we read that "animal rights activist" Brigitte Bardot, who "fed her dogs boiled chicken breast and mashed vegetables -- drew fire from South Koreans for describing the practice of eating dog meat as 'savage' in an interview with a local journalist."
Then the article does intentionally pick up that issue with:
"For others, dog meat has served as a provocative thought exercise about the arbitrariness of the moral value humans assign to animals.
"Ethicists such as Peter Singer, for example, have argued against speciesism -- the idea that dogs should be considered off-limits while pigs, an animal that is no less intelligent, are commonly accepted as food.
"Although reliable statistics for dog meat in South Korea are scarce, a recent government survey found that about 390,000 dogs are slaughtered for consumption every year in the nation, while animal rights groups claim that the number is closer to 1 million. By contrast, 18 million pigs are slaughtered annually.
"'Ending the use of dogs for meat in Korea would be a small but significant step towards reducing the immense suffering inflicted on animals in that country,' Singer, a vegan, recently told a local newspaper. 'But ending the use of pigs for meat would be much more significant.'"
(Note: Peter Singer recently noted that he is vegan at home but more of a flexitarian when out and about in the world.)
And we learn that Jonathan Safran Foer wrote a satirical essay titled "Let Them Eat Dog," in 2009:
"Questioning the morality of eating farmed meat while millions of abandoned cats and dogs are euthanized annually, Foer wrote: 'The simple disposal of these euthanized dogs is an enormous ecological and economic problem. But eating those strays, those runaways, those not-quite-cute-enough-to-take and not-quite-well-behaved-enough-to-keep dogs would be killing a flock of birds with one stone and eating it, too.'"
I questioned, today on the Mark Thompson show, whether banning dog meat would actually do anything to reduce "the immense suffering inflicted on animals" in Korea, unless folks replaced dog meat with plant-based meals, as opposed to chicken, duck or pig meat. Not that I am against banning dog meat! But I question the mainstream narrative on the issue. You can watch/listen to that interview here https://youtu.be/HbzNoiqTWLE if you are interested.
For more illogic, we go further down the article and learn:
"Despite an overcrowding crisis at animal shelters around the country, many are willing to pay premiums as high as $2,000 or more to adopt dogs from the meat trade."
Though this country still kills hundreds of thousands of dogs every year for lack of homes, Humane Society International "has arranged the adoptions of about 2,700 dogs rescued from South Korean meat farms since 2015," and "says that treating, rehabilitating and transporting the dogs is expensive, although it did not provide a specific figure."
There is so much to respond to here, regarding our treatment of animals other than dogs, or of dogs right here in the USA - plenty of opportunity to give animals a voice in the major media, with thanks for this thoughtful coverage being a great jump-off point.
The Los Angeles Times takes letters here.
----------------------
Another article in today's Los Angeles Times, announced on the front page and printed on page A7, is titled, "Weighing danger to birds: turbines vs fracking." It tells us that fracking is worse, with deaths from wind turbines having been "weaponized by those opposed to renewable energy.”
I send thanks to Elaine Livesey-Fassel for making sure we saw that one.
If renewable energy is your thing, why not respond to that one?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I send thanks to those of you who responded to Eric Mill’s op-ed in the San Diego Tribune against the rodeo. The paper printed two great letters , discussing the needless cruelty and abuse and the barbaric events that are a part of rodeo.
The blessed paper published a second piece on the issue, this one online, by activist Ellen Ericksen, titled, “It is time to ban all rodeos. Start with the event at Petco Park hosted by the Padres.”
And today Sandiegoville.com shared, "Horrific" Sight: Horse appears to die after Violently Crashes Into Barricade On First Night Of San Diego Rodeo At Petco Park. That one comes replete with the horrifying video.
---------------------------------
Southern Texas is in a deep freeze. The front page of today's, Monday January 15, San Antonio News Express announced, "San Antonio Animal Care Services sent out a memo this weekend reminding residents that they are violating city and state law if they leave their pets outdoors when the temperature is below 32 degrees." Texans and others passionate about that issue should check out the article and respond, perhaps leading with appreciation for the alert to it appearing on the front page. Here are the guidelines.
--
Finally, I have posted very good news today from Sonoma, Northern California, courtesy of the North Bay Business Journal:
"A coalition of animal welfare activists, animal sanctuaries, antitoxin advocates and a handful of small poultry farms, is collecting signatures to put a resolution on the November ballot called the Prohibition on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs.
Their effort is finding some traction. According to Samantha Faye, a Coalition To End Factory Farming spokesperson, they have collected more than 26,000 signatures. They need 19,746 to qualify for the ballot, but want to make sure they can prevail if a large number of names are disqualified by the county registrar."
Yours and all animals',
Karen Dawn of DawnWatch
