When SeaWorld’s stock price took a plunge last week, the ratings agency Standard & Poors blamed it on lower attendance due to “the company’s use of orca whales for entertainment purposes.” In response, SeaWorld announced that it is enlarging the orca tanks at three of its parks.

With the orca show being SeaWorld’s main attraction, I understand why the heartless souls who run the company would attempt install bigger tanks to regain the public trust and salvage the show, but could this possibly work, given public pressure to release the whales into ocean sanctuaries? Could bigger tanks really enable Sea World to continue holding whales captive? It’s too soon to say, but the activist community is doubling down – with PETA releasing this new 30 second video about orca activity. Even CNN is joining the fight by re-airing Blackfish, which is what triggered the international movement against Sea World in the first place. Thank you, CNN.

One month after a whistle blower at Princeton sent PETA an internal email describing the callous abuse of a lab monkey, the University issued a statement claiming they found “no evidence to support allegations of animal mistreatment.” The internal email, which was sent by a psychology professor to his lab workers after he learned that they rolled at least one marmoset monkey down the hall in a ferret exercise ball, stated: “The marmosets are not in the lab for your amusement. . . We are forcing them into experimental contexts that they wouldn’t otherwise choose because that is the only way that we can address our scientific questions. To force them into contexts for which there is no scientific justification is reprehensible and, frankly, unethical.”

In its statement, Princeton denied wrongdoing, stating its “investigation determined that a researcher had placed a single marmoset in a ferret exercise ball to explore use of the ball by marmosets during research projects. . . The ball was observed while on a track and on the floor, where it rolled slowly for a short distance.”

Marmoset

While Princeton won’t admit to animal cruelty in this case, it must be acknowledging prior abuse or the potential for abuse by describing steps it has taken in recent years to strengthen its animal care, including “hiring additional professional staff with expertise in laboratory animal medicine” and “creating a new Office of Research Integrity and Assurance.” Of course, no amount of reform will make it acceptable to hold animals captive in lab cages, depriving them of everything that comes naturally to them and experimenting on their bodies. Animal experimentation must and will eventually be banned with the help of organizations like Stop Animal Experimentation Now.

The Miami Herald has published a heartwarming article about a Florida couple who lived modestly but donated lavishly. Among the many things that make this couple appealing was that they gave anonymously, requiring charities to withhold their identities until after they died. You simply cannot read this article and not fall in love with the generous and humble Winnie and Al Sami. But there is a catch.

The Samis loved animals and donated at least $800,000 to help them. Unfortunately, they directed their charitable giving to a zoo, which doesn’t help animals but instead holds them captive for life – unable to do what would come naturally to them in the wild and treated like an exhibit.

I don’t begrudge the Samis for donating to a zoo. They were kind people who simply didn’t know better. Had they been educated about the inherent cruelty of zoos, perhaps they would have directed their millions to liberating animals instead of helping to keep them imprisoned. The lesson for me here is that education will lead to liberation. I believe that million, of well-intended people like the Samis would change their behavior if they had the information. But the burden falls on us to educate the good guys.

Please use this article as an opportunity to submit a letter to the editor of the Miami Herald expressing your point of view about zoos.

Winni & Al Sami (Photo: Zoo Miami)

The Bluffdale rodeo in Utah has cancelled its Barnyard Bonanza in which “little cowboys and cowgirls” chase chickens, kittens, goats, rabbits and other small animals. According to advertisements for the event, “Whatever you catch, you get to take home.” On Facebook, the rodeo chairwoman posted a request for unwanted pets to be donated to the event. Animal rights activists, who “were aghast that small animals that had been pets would find themselves in this terrifying environment,” complained loudly enough that the organizers decided to cancel the animal chasing event and distribute stuffed animals to the children instead.

The rodeo advertisement should have read: “Whoever you catch, you get to take home” instead of “Whatever you catch.”  Of course, the rodeo should have never been scheduled in the first place because chasing terrified farm animals and companion animals for sport is barbaric, as is teaching children that this type of activity is acceptable. Learn more about rodeo cruelty and see how you can help stop them.

Whole Foods is selling rabbit meat and whole frozen rabbits in some part of the country, and activists are protesting. One handout reads, “Rabbits are the 3rd most popular furry companion in the U.S. and have unique personalities just like dogs and cats. They enjoy running, jumping, snuggling with other rabbits and form deep bonds with their humans.”

Whole Foods is defending the sale of rabbits, claiming they are treated humanely: “The rabbits will be raised in pens on solid floors with dry bedding to allow them to socialize, hide, climb, forage and play. The rabbits also have to have continuous access to drinking water, feed, gnawing blocks, tunnels and places for seclusion.”

The commercial farming of ANY animal for human consumption is inhumane, and it all has to stop – for the sake of the animals and the environment. In the meantime, why are we be protesting the sale of rabbits at Whole Foods if they do, in fact, have better lives than the broiler chickens being sold at the grocery store down the street? Do we think that companion animals deserve to be spared any more than chickens or cows, or are we simply using the “companion animal” rationale because it might be an effective approach to helping at least a few animals?

In our efforts to ban the slaughter of American horses, activists often use the same “companion animal” rationale. While I don’t think that horses or rabbits deserve to live or die any more than other animals, I will nonetheless be thrilled when the slaughter of horses and sale of rabbit meat are banned. (Please sign change.org petition to Whole Foods). I am grateful to activists who campaign against any form of animal abuse. At the end of the day, we’re probably most effective when we pick the battles that resonate most with ourselves.