To the Murderer(s) of My Friend Matt Coleman

Dear Killer(s):

My name is Mat Thomas, and Matt Coleman was my good friend. A professional environmentalist and passionate protector of the natural world, Matt Coleman worked as a conservation steward, volunteer coordinator and wildlife population surveyor for the Mendocino Land Trust during the past six years. You probably only knew Matt Coleman as the tall, bulky stranger you shot to death in a barrage of bullets on Thursday, August 11th while he was doing restoration work at Cape Vizcaino, a remote 400-acre coastal forest reserve near Westport, California owned by the Save the Redwoods League. I, on the other hand, knew Matt Coleman personally as a close friend, confidant and housemate for several years, as well as a fellow literature lover, activist, outdoor enthusiast and creative collaborator on the Magnificent Glass Pelican radio program. We met when I was a freshman at the State University of New York, New Paltz, and remained friends for more than two decades. A fortunate few knew and loved him as son, brother or life partner; still others knew and respected him as colleague, community member, role model or mentor. All of us miss him terribly. 

Unlike you, we all know what kind of man Matt Coleman was: a strong, caring, compassionate, generous, funny, intelligent, energetic, noble one who’d found meaning and purpose in working to make Earth a better planetary home for people and wildlife alike. Inspired by his heroes Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Edward Abbey, and George Washington Hayduke, Matt Coleman followed their giant footsteps into the wilderness. He was only 45 years old, and probably had several good decades of life left in him. Yet you selfishly robbed Matt Coleman of his life and stole him away from us. What we want to know now is why.  

Seriously: you owe all those who knew and cared about Matt Coleman an explanation, because you had no right to kill him, and you inflicted severe emotional, existential and spiritual trauma on us when you did. We are stricken with shock, struggling to make some semblance of sense out of his apparently pointless murder. Yet we find this far more difficult to do than we would if we knew why someone decided to brutally eradicate this unique, irreplaceable individual from existence. In the depths of our psyches, we wonder: what possible scenario could there be to morally justify murdering Matt Coleman? What non-self-serving motive could you conceivably offer in your own defense? 

And Just Who the Hell Are You?*

Are you part of an armed mercenary militia force employed by a marijuana cartel, and did Matt Coleman discover your illegally-grown pot plantation (as the most plausible hypothesis maintains)? If so, how does it feel knowing that you permanently obliterated a singular human being’s consciousness for something so crass as money, and to protect yourself/selves and your fellow felons from detection? 

Or are you some unknown enemy who nursed a grudge against Matt Coleman and decided to take your petty revenge for some perceived slight? If so, how do you feel now that the deed is done? Does your vengeance taste as sticky-sweet as you’d imagined, or has it already turned to bitter ashes in your mouth? 

Or are you just some random crazyperson who stalked a lone defenseless caretaker into the woods as an easy victim? If so, I pity your chemically-distorted dementia (which is no doubt mentally agonizing). Yet, despite your disability, I cannot forgive your mortal trespass. 

Whoever you are, did you get a thrill when you pulled the trigger? Did killing a man make you feel powerful, invincible, Godlike? Among the most troubling questions about Matt Coleman’s death for those of us who knew him is whether his last moments were filled with the terror of knowing that his life was about to end. The police have not publicly released such details as how many bullets you blasted into his torso, whether you shot him from the front or back, or any incriminating evidence they may have discovered at the crime scene or on your victim’s corpse. I assume the cops have kept this information classified to maintain the upper hand against you in their investigation. In this unfortunate situation, the best we can hope for is that our dearly departed companion died quickly, and that you, his killer(s), at least had the basic human decency not to taunt your prey or ridicule his sudden infirmity and helplessness as his precious lifeforce drained away in a pool of warm blood on the ground. 

Regardless of the exact circumstances of Matt Coleman’s murder, and whatever your reasons or reactions might have been, I cannot forgive you for killing him: not yet, anyway. Because, to even begin healing the wounds afflicting our grieving souls, you owe us—Matt Coleman’s surviving kith and kin—more than a mere explanation: you owe us justice. For our sake, as well as the sake of your own deliverance from evil, I urge you to turn yourself/selves over to the authorities now so that you can be held accountable for your abominable actions and spare yourself/selves the Hell of your own personal torment.

Exorcise Your Demons

I figure there is a good chance that you, Matt Coleman’s killer(s), may read this open letter at some point. I say this because you are probably doing what most felons do: scouring the Internet for information about your crime—whether it’s to determine if the police have uncovered any damning forensic evidence, or to satiate a narcissistic hunger for media attention (anonymous as it is). Furthermore, based on what I recently learned about search engine optimization, I’ve strategically used the term “Matt Coleman” 32 times betting that Google will prominently feature this letter near the top of its browser results. 

You probably don’t want to give yourself/selves up because you’re afraid of going to prison. But you know what? You’re already in prison, whether you realize it or not. You took a human life, and somewhere deep down you know that this was wrong—religiously speaking, a mortal sin even. No matter how tough you think you are or how hardened your black heart(s) may be, guilt and shame are festering inside your guts, eating away at the calluses that have calcified around your conscience(s). You may presently be too emotionally crippled and desensitized to be fully conscious of the disgraceful state of your soul(s), but understand that you will remain trapped in cages of your own remorse until you acknowledge and pay the price for the grave damage you’ve done to others.

Has someone you loved ever died? Was that person murdered by another human being? If so, then perhaps you know the pain that we, Matt Coleman’s survivors, feel burning inside us. Maybe you’ve buried that anguish, that suffering, beneath layers of denial and self-deception, but at least some part of you knows it’s still there, controlling your life/lives, and ultimately can’t be avoided. And it’s going to drive you to kill again unless you deliberately disrupt your destructive pattern—especially if Matt Coleman was not your first murder victim. Nevertheless, whether he was or wasn’t, I’m fairly certain that he won’t be your last. 

You think you can quit killing anytime you want? I seriously doubt it. Don’t take my word for it: listen to someone who knows. In 1997, Matt Coleman turned me on to Ani DiFranco & Utah Phillips’ album The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere. On the track “Anarchy,” Phillips had this to say about violence (quoting the wisdom of Ammon Hennacy, Phillips’ halfway-house manager in the 1950s after he’d returned home from the Korean war):

“You know, alcoholism will kill somebody, until they finally get the courage to sit in a circle of people like that and put their hand up in the air and say, 'Hi, my name’s Utah, I’m an alcoholic.' And then you can begin to deal with the behavior, you see, and have the people define it for you whose lives you’ve destroyed.” (Hennacy) said, “It’s the same with violence. You know, an alcoholic, they can be dry for twenty years; they’re never gonna sit in that circle and put their hand up and say, 'Well, I’m not alcoholic anymore' – no: they’re still gonna put their hand up and say, 'Hi, my name’s Utah, I’m an alcoholic.' It’s the same with violence. You gotta be able to put your hand in the air and acknowledge your capacity for violence, and then deal with the behavior, and have the people whose lives you’ve messed with define that behavior for you, you see. And it’s not gonna go away: you’re gonna be dealing with it every moment in every situation for the rest of your life.”

So you see, dear murderer(s), you’re addicted to violence, and you’re not gonna be able to stop killing on your own…especially if you continue down the cruel path that led you to murder Matt Coleman in the first place. Your humanity—the very core of one’s Self—has already been corrupted and corroded by murdering Matt Coleman and perhaps others. Do you really want to make it worse by committing even more murders?

Your only chance for salvation from your current malady, and an even more horrifying fate than you’re already burdened with, is to surrender yourself/selves to the police. Taking responsibility for your crime will definitely be difficult, but at least you will have finally broken out of your vicious cycle and begun to purify your poisoned soul(s). However, if you refuse to confront your demons by honestly answering for the murder of Matt Coleman, your inner torture will never cease, but rather magnify exponentially until it has completely consumed whatever shriveling remnants of your humanity still remain.  

Coleman Lives! 

By murdering Matt Coleman, you may have decimated his body, terminated his brain functions, ceased his sentience and extinguished his essence, but there is still one vital part of him that you could not kill: his spirit, which will live on forever inside the hearts of all those who knew him. Matt’s family, friends and colleagues will therefore always remember him as a martyr to the critical cause of protecting Earth from human greed and exploitation. Inspired by his courage and resolve, others will continue Matt’s environmental protection work where he left off with renewed effort, and carry the torch of progress for him now that he has departed this world.  

Matt Coleman not only lived and died doing what he loved—he lived and died for what he loved. That is, if you are in fact a member of Mendocino’s marijuana mafia, you most likely killed him because he tried to defend the forest’s fragile ecosystem against your illicit invasion. Do you even know (or care) how badly illegal pot grows damage the environment? The toxic fertilizers and pesticides used to grow pot plants pollute the ecosystem for miles around, and the tons of trash left behind (from hoses to empty propane canisters) blight otherwise pristine landscapes. Illegal marijuana farmers deprive wildlife of the natural habitat they need to survive by cutting down trees to build shelters, fencing off large swaths of land, and diverting water sources to grow cash crops. The booby traps they set with live explosives to deter nosy visitors often kill animals, and those who squat on public lands to grow or guard crops illegally poach animals for food. 

If you are an outlaw pot farm guard, then you know that your kind do not fit the mellow hippy stereotype most people associate with marijuana cultivation. The criminal cannabis underground is instead populated by vile, abhorrent thugs who ravage lands that rightfully belong to the American people and ruthlessly execute anyone who threatens their profits. To them, killing is just a cost of doing business. In fact, just today Fort Bragg City Councilman Jere Melo was shot and killed after finding an illegal pot operation on a parcel of land he was managing. 

Though it is of limited consolation to those of us who mourn Matt Coleman, at least we know that his final moments were spent in the place that he most loved: the wild, cradled under the canopy of ancient, native trees that he dedicated himself to safeguarding. Matt Coleman was a peaceful warrior, and it is significant and symbolic that when you spilled his blood, it poured into, blended with and nourished the living soil where he fell on the environmental battlefield. We who remain can take some small comfort that, even though you took Matt Coleman’s life, you could not crush his convictions. 

I will always fondly remember my friend Matt Coleman in my own personal way. I will hear his gruff Brooklyn-accented, California-surfer-dude-inflected voice whenever I listen to The Pogues, The Clash or Bob Marley. I will think of his voracious intellect and sharp sense of humor whenever I read Gary Snyder, Ursula K. LeGuin or Zippy the Pinhead. I will see Matt’s smiling face—punctuated by his untamed lion’s mane of gray-blonde hair, grizzled beard and silver-rimmed glasses—every time I watch the sun set in radiant golden-azure glory, or the incandescent cobalt waves roll and tumble over the Pacific shoreline, or the luminous sea of distant suns impossibly floating in the infinite night sky. 

Matt, you are one with the Earth, with Creation now. Tom Waits expressed it better and more simply in his song “Take It With Me” than I could ever hope to in mere written words: “It’s got to be more than flesh and bone / All that you’ve loved is all you own.” With this parting poetic sentiment, my friend, I bid you a gloomy goodbye and wish you blissful eternity in the Heaven of your choosing. Peace out, brother.

1) In the wake of Matt Coleman’s passing, family and friends have set up two funds that you can donate to:

- Memorial Fund: An endowment has been established in Matt Coleman's memory that reflects his lifelong passions and interests. Please send donations to: The Community Foundation of Mendocino County; Matthew Coleman Fund for Environmental Education & Conservation; 290 S. State Street; Ukiah, CA 95482.

- Reward Fund: The Mendocino Land Trust founded a reward fund (now over $30,000 as of 9/23/11) in hopes of encouraging those with information about Matt Coleman’s murder to come forward. Please make checks out to "Mendocino Land Trust" and send donations to: REWARD; c/o MLT; Box 1094; Mendocino, CA 95460. Contact Jez at 707-962-0470 or janderson@mendocinolandtrust.org for more information. Receipts will be provided for all donations, and monies will be returned to donors if no reward is paid out.

2) If you have any information potentially pertaining to Matt Coleman’s murder, please call the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office at 707-467-9159 or 707-463-4086. Callers can choose to remain anonymous. 

3) Visit my Facebook page for updates on the police investigation.

* Police killed Aaron Bassler, suspect in the murders of both Matt Coleman and Councilman Melo, on Saturday, October 1st.

Related AnimalRightings:

- James McCaffry: 1954-2011

- Witness to Suicide at Powell and Market

- Leaked NRA Pamphlet Targets “Animal Rights Terrorists”

Meat-Free Politicians

Vote Veg! That's the message of "Meat-Free Politicians," my new article which VegNews magazine published on their website today. The piece includes short profiles of five vegetarian leaders at the national, state and local levels:

- US Congressman Dennis Kucinich

- US Congresswoman Betty Sutton

- Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin

- California Assemblyman Jim Beall, Jr.
- San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

 

My aim was to highlight the work that each of these elected officials has done to help move the veg cause forward.

 

READ THE ARTICLE

Californians: Urge Gov. Schwarzenegger to Sign Fur Labeling Bill Into Law

And everyone, please ask your U.S. Senators to support the federal bill that would enact a similar law nationally

The California State Assembly earned major kudos yesterday for passing AB1656, a bill that would close a longstanding loophole allowing retailers to sell fur clothing worth $150 or less without labeling these items as animal pelts. However, before this bill can become law, Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger has to sign it*. Information about how you can encourage the Governor to put his name on the dotted line—and urge federal lawmakers to pass a pending national fur labeling law—can be found at the end of this post: but first, here's some background explaining why it's important that they do so.

Congress ratified the original Fur Products Labeling Act nearly 60 years ago, but under industry pressure conceded that stores could still sell fur products worth $150 or less without labels. This was long before the technological advent of synthetic fur production, the popularity of fur trim and dyed fur in fashion design, and the development of society's widespread ethical awareness about animals exploited for clothes (which was raised almost exclusively by animal advocates' ongoing outreach efforts). I guess that's why it's only now, in the 21st century, that lawmakers are gradually getting around to fixing their predecessors' oversight.

In this day and age, when at least as many animals are killed for fur-trimmed garments as body-length coats, and few people can tell the difference between real and faux fur, many thousands of consumers unknowingly buy fur clothing and accessories because they assume that if it isn't labeled as such, it must be fake. Yet the reality today is that one in eight genuine animal fur garments are legally unlabeled, and while most of these are made from racoon dogs, some are actually the skin and fur of dogs and cats slaughtered in China. It's illegal to sell canine and feline fur in the U.S., but the outdated Fur Products Labeling Act makes effective enforcement challenging, to say the least.

With federal law lacking the teeth to keep people informed about the suffering behind their purchases, some state governments have taken forceful action to close the information gap. While California often leads the nation in passing progressive legislation, they will actually in this case only be the sixth state to enact a comprehensive fur labeling law (if Governor Schwarzenegger signs the bill). Better late then never though, so rather than dwelling on the past, let's now just get the Governator on board!

I've written before in this blog about Governor Schwarzenegger's somewhat chequered animal protection record. He has yet to weigh in either way on AB1656, but because this bill passed both chambers with overwhelming majorities, there's a good chance he'll do the right thing. Still, we need to ensure that he does—which is why we California voters need to make our voices heard now.

- Call Governor Schwarzenegger at 916-445-2841 and politely ask him to sign AB1656 into law, then follow up by sending a personal email to his office. A short, direct message is best in this case when time is of the essence, so all you need to say/write is something like "Governor Schwarzenegger, as a voter and constituent I respectfully ask that you please sign AB1656. This bill will ensure accurate labeling of fur clothing sold in California, and was recently passed with overwhelming majorities by state legislators. Thank you."

- The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of the Truth in Fur Labeling Act (HR2480) in July 2010, and now it's the Senate's turn to follow suit by passing S1076. Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 urging them to do so, and follow up by sending them an email using the Action Alert provided by the Humane Society of the United States (sponsor of the fur labeling bills in California and other states).

* Sadly, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB1656 on September 27, 2010.

California Lawmakers Consider Creating Animal Abuse Registry

Online database would protect animals by identifying convicted felons

In November 2008, former Los Angeles County Assistant Fire Chief Glynn Johnson publicly beat his neighbor’s six-month-old puppy Karley so viciously with a 12-pound rock that she suffered skull fractures, a cracked jaw, collapsed nasal passages, a crushed ear canal, and broken-out teeth. After the young German shepherd mix was determined unsavable and subsequently euthanized, Johnson was convicted of felony animal cruelty, and currently awaits sentencing*. But what’s to prevent this known animal killer from taking his aggression out on another defenseless victim the next time he becomes uncontrollably enraged?

Though it’s of little consolation to Karley or her aggrieved guardians, at least this tragedy has inspired one lawmaker, California senate majority leader Dean Florez, to introduce a measure that would prevent other animals from suffering similar fates. If his proposed “Animal Abuse Registry” bill (SB1277) becomes law, it would institute a statewide database documenting cruelty cases that would enable law enforcement agencies, shelter staff and average citizens to track convicted felons and consequently keep them away from innocent animals. Florez modeled his legislation on the sex offenders’ database pioneered in California that puts criminals’ addresses, places of employment, and photographs online, and now operates in all 50 states, successfully reducing recidivism among these dangerous deviants.

No doubt, the bill’s passage would be a major advance in the fight against animal cruelty. For one, it would enable shelters and breeders to ensure that they don’t adopt or sell animals to known abusers, including those who’ve been convicted of hoarding animals, running illegal animal fighting rings, operating disgraced puppy mills, and otherwise torturing, mutilating or killing animals. And because animal cruelty has been conclusively linked with domestic violence, child abuse and even serial murders, it would also serve as an early warning system that would help police investigators to prevent other violent crimes.

However, while an animal abuse registry would certainly reduce cruelty cases by acting as both a deterrent and stopgap against violent behavior, some critics warn that it would violate offenders’ civil liberties by socially stigmatizing those who’ve already paid for their crimes with jail time. Opponents also worry that making abusers’ whereabouts and criminal records public might encourage those who feel the convicted haven’t been adequately punished to pursue vigilante justice. Others claim that it is unfair to require animal guardians to finance the database’s creation and upkeep with a two-to-three-cent-per-pound tax on pet food, and that alternate funding methods (like having felons pay a $50 fine) will not raise enough money for the program’s maintenance.

Ultimately, however, what it boils down to is whether protecting the privacy of animal abusers is more important than saving animals’ lives. The Animal Legal Defense Fund, for one, hopes that California will become the first to publicly register animal abusers, and that other states will soon follow suit until a national database is firmly established. The group’s website, www.exposeanimalabusers.org, encourages visitors to sign a petition urging their state legislators to introduce their own bills, and features a video outlining the advantages of animal abuse registries.

*  In April, Johnson was sentenced to 90 days in jail. The judge also required him to serve 400 hours of community service working with dogs, take anger management courses, and reimburse Karley’s guardians for the veterinary expenses they paid in attempting to save her life.

Living On Burrowed Time

Help stop the impending eviction of Antioch's owls

When I worked at the University of California, Davis (circa 1998-99), burrowing owls occupied underground nests around my workplace, the Carlson Health Sciences Library, which lies on the relatively remote outskirts of the UC system's largest campus. I loved watching them peek their little heads up through holes in the earth, and would stand awed as they unselfconsciously stared back at me with an intensely palpable awareness and fierce dignity. So, because burrowing owls are such an integral part of my personal natural history (not to mention the Dead Milkmen's timeless post-punk epic "Stuart"), I feel a strong emotional connection with these downy-feathered cutie-pies — and a commensurate outrage that government agents paid with our tax dollars to protect wildlife are continually bending over for business interests that don't give a flying hoot about owls.

This time, an established community of these unique birds is slated for expulsion from their habitat in the East Bay town of Antioch, California because the state's Dept. of Fish & Game is allowing real estate prospector Kiper Homes to proceed with construction of the Blue Ridge housing development. Workers have already started placing one-way eviction doors (that allow residents to leave but not return) over many of the burrows' tunnel openings, a job that by law must be completed by next month (before the owls' breeding season begins). Then Kiper will complete the foreclosure by caving the den in so the birds can't come back, and exterminators will proceed with gassing the remaining ground squirrels to death as a mere formality.

It is estimated that there are probably fewer than 10,000 burrowing owl breeding pairs left in the U.S., and yet 11 members of this native species are being forced out of their habitat in the middle of winter just before they are about to reproduce. Perhaps, being unable to quickly find safe, secure and suitable shelter, some or all will die from exposure to the winter elements or predation. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has officially identified burrowing owls as a "candidate species" for either “threatened” or “endangered” status, and California considers them a "Species of Special Concern" under the state's Endangered Species Act because their population has declined by about 50 percent in the last 10-15 years. The number one jeopardizer of their existence: real estate development.

People vs. Owls

Surely the anthropocentric will protest, “Hey, they're just owls — and people need places to live more than they do!” But why do we have to build on land already occupied by members of a species whose numbers are rapidly dwindling? There are over 300 million humans in the U.S., and only a few thousand burrowing owls: is spreading suburban sprawl really such a boon to our society that it justifies risking the irreversible eradication of a species?

And yes, all kinds of creatures are summarily displaced and killed whenever houses and neighborhoods are built, and even we animal activists take this so much for granted that it usually passes without mention — until the animal under the bulldozer is both adorable and potentially threatened or endangered. In this case, for instance, we may feel bad for the owls, but (if we really think about it) even worse for the squirrels. So, in the long view, we need to radically reinvent construction practices to minimize our destructive impact on the environment and those already living in it.

Realistically, anyplace we build will be home to some form of fauna or flora, and animal and environmental advocates can't save them all. So we have to start somewhere, and it makes pragmatic sense to focus first on the most ecologically vulnerable. Then again, these are not actually separate issues, because by stopping the development of this particular housing complex (and others like it in the future), we can save both the owls and the squirrels.

• Local grassroots group Friends of East Bay Owls encourages concerned citizens to write letters (based on provided samples) to California Attorney General Jerry Brown, Fish & Game Director John McCammon, and state senators asking them to revise current owl eviction policies. They are also looking for volunteers to help install artificial burrows at Antioch's Prewett Ranch Family Park on Saturday, January 23rd.

• Urban wildlife rehabilitation center Wild Care Bay Area, meanwhile, is urging people to contact the Antioch City Council — as well as Ed Hobaugh, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Kiper Development, Inc., at (925) 648-8888 ext. 13 or ehobaugh@kiperinc.com. Their alert includes a sample letter tailored for City Council members, but only talking points for Mr. Hobaugh emphasizing the fact that Kiper never performed an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed housing site. If you do speak with Mr. Hobaugh, I suggest that you kindly ask him to explain why he thinks his company's profits are more important than the fate of the burrowing owl community. I'd do it myself, but I just moved cross-country last week back to the Bay Area, and the stress of displacement would leave me more susceptible to losing my cool when he says, in so many words, that it's just business.

Critical: Tell Gov. Schwarzenegger NO VET CARE TAX!

Animal guardians should not have to pay “luxury tax” on veterinary visits

My fellow Californians: first the bad news, then the other bad news. Our state faces a $41 billion budget deficit over the next 18 months, and to make matters worse, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger propounds paying it off by sticking animal guardians with the bill. How? By taxing veterinary care as a “luxury” item — literally equivalent (in the governor’s proposal) to other discretionary activities he now wants to tax like going to an amusement park, attending a sports event, playing golf, having your furniture repaired, or taking your car to a mechanic.

Schwarzenegger's short-sighted solution to solving California's debt crisis by imposing a “sales tax” of up to 10.5% on vet services (including routine checkups, vaccinations and prescription medications) is offensive enough. However, on top of that — adding linguistic insult to economic injury — he also wants to redefine taking a sick or injured animal companion to the vet as an optional extravagance (as opposed to a personal, family or moral obligation) that should be factored into your entertainment and household maintenance expenses. This regressive “Fido Fine” will surely force many financially-strapped guardians to choose between repairing the car and “fixing” the cat.

Terminator Tax

If anyone deserves a break in this tough economy, it’s animal guardians, who account for more than half the state’s population and spend about $2.7 billion a year on vet care. Unemployment is officially over 7% right now, so many people without jobs must (metaphorically) tighten their pets’ belts along with their own. Meanwhile, veterinary care is already too expensive for many families to afford, and the added tax would leave them even less able to provide for their own adopted animal family members, surely forcing some to surrender their animal companions to shelters for lack of funds.

Animal shelters, underfunded as they already are, would also have to pay more for essential veterinary services, including spay and neuter operations that reduce pet homelessness and euthanasia. Many large municipal shelters already spend several million dollars a year on such expenses — and would have to shell out hundreds of thousands more under Schwarzenegger’s plan. Every extra dollar allocated to veterinary care is a dollar taken away from animals who desperately need food, shelter, and every chance they can get to find loving guardians — meaning that shelters would no longer be able to feed, house, and save as many animals.

Arnold and Animals

In the original (1984) Terminator movie, Arnold (the actor) was a cold, murderous cyborg, but in the blockbuster sequel released seven years later, he played a good Terminator — a bodyguard transported back through time who is programmed to protect the life of a vulnerable boy. Similarly, Schwarzenegger (the governor) has also taken on these dual roles when dealing with animal protection issues — alternately playing the callous politico, then the compassionate leader.

For instance, while (at first) he called the proposal to ban the sale and production of foie gras in California “silly,” in the end he changed his tune and signed the bill into law in 2004. That same year, he tried to repeal a law that requires shelters to provide veterinary care for all animals, document and report on the number of animals they manage, and hold animals for a minimum of six days before euthanizing them — that is, until he suddenly rescinded his suggestion under concerted pressure from animal advocates (and his daughter's entreaties). Then again, Schwarzenegger famously appeared in a PETA anti-milk billboard campaign, and won the group’s “Proggy Award” last year for signing a bill to regulate the chaining of dogs.

Governor Schwarzenegger has shown concern for animals, so how can he not see how wrong and unfair it is to make caring people fork over more money for essential and life-saving services — especially when there are so many animal abusers who should be “paying” for their crimes? And so, I give you my plan for enabling California to resolve the budget shortfall and help animals at the same time: ensure that factory farms and slaughterhouses pay the maximum fines any and every time they violate anti-cruelty, environmental, or labor laws. That deficit would probably be paid down in no time if the government actually enforced existing statutes (any accountants out there want to crunch the numbers?) by cracking down on all the agribusiness producers who ignore state laws.

The California legislature could vote on this tax any day now, which you could be paying as soon as February 1^st if they pass it, so now is the time to act. Please politely urge Governor Schwarzenegger and your state legislators to take the vet care tax out of the budget proposal, and to instead raise funds for California by collecting fines from factory farms that break laws meant to protect animals, people and the planet.

The easiest way to oppose this unjust tax is to send an automatic email to these elected officials through HSUS’s Humane Alert on this issue. But to have the maximum impact, use this contact info to follow up with postal letters, phone calls, faxes, or personal emails:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916/445-2841
Fax: 916/445-4633
Email the governor

Find out who your legislators are and get their contact information

Please also let your animal-loving family and friends in California know how they can help.

Transcendence

The election is finally over, and...WE WON!

Tuesday, November 4th saw two major victories for animals: the passage of Proposition 2 (the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) in California, and the election of President Barack Obama, both of which garnered a wide margin of voter support.

I sit now in my personal power spot, atop a hill in Golden Gate Park from which I try to survey on high the brand new world that formed overnight while I slept, still carrying a hangover from election celebrations—as well as the psychic battering of the last eight years. Our long national nightmare of Bush-rule is coming to a close, but we will be reeling from the repercussions for a long time to come. Thankfully, the historic landslide sweep of “transcendent” multi-racial President-elect Obama is a significant sign that the United States of America has repudiated un-Constitutional unilateral arrogance, as well as hateful prejudices, and renewed its sacred promise to freedom and liberty for all—including, in my view, our animal kin.

Proposition 2

The fact that Prop 2 passed at the same time that Obama won the Presidency seems in itself momentous, showing unparalleled growth in the public’s awareness of and concern for farm animals. California is now the first state to ban battery cages for egg-laying hens (along with gestation crates for pregnant pigs and veal crates for calves). It’s a really big deal, and is being hailed as the the most significant advance in the history of the animal protection movement, at least as far as the number of animals affected is concerned.

Today I called my friend Paul Shapiro, the Director of Factory Farm Campaigns over at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), to congratulate him on Prop 2’s passage. The initiative was co-sponsored by HSUS and Farm Sanctuary (my employer), so for us and the multitude of others who worked on the initiative, as paid staff or volunteers, this has been a day to take pride in our collective accomplishment. After more than a year and a half of work, our movement’s efforts came to sweet fruition.

Paul and I shared our mutual excitement over the win, and talked some about what it might mean not only in California, but for the nation as well. “Seeing the largest agricultural state in the country ban battery cages is a dream come true for me, and for animal activists everywhere, because it will help more animals than any other voter decision in history,” Paul told me. “There’s never been anything like this, which shows just how far the farm animal protection movement has come in just a few short years. And my greatest delight today comes from knowing that we finally won a decisive victory for chickens.”

As Paul says, egg-laying hens are arguably the most cruelly-abused and long-suffering creatures on the planet. Chickens represent about 90% of the farm animals slaughtered for food every year, so of the 10 billion or so killed in the U.S. on an annual basis, about 9 billion are chickens. Most of these are “broilers” specifically raised for meat, but this number also includes “spent” hens who spend their entire lives packed with five or six others in battery cages where there isn’t even enough room for them to lift their wings. Prop 2 will require farmers to provide the nearly 20 million egg-laying hens raised in California every year with enough space to stand up, lie down, turn around, and spread their wings: which will probably necessitate a gradual transition to cage-free husbandry methods.

Paul says he's confident that California is just the beginning, and that other states are going to follow suit in the near future. “The opposition, funded mainly by the factory farms themselves, spent $9 million trying to defeat Prop 2, which was much more than the industry has spent to fight any other reform initiative targeting farm animals. This failure is going to force the industry to face the undeniable fact that they can’t win these battles against public opinion on animal abuse—no matter how much they spend. Maybe the next time we introduce a state ballot initiative, the industry will invest their money in helping farmers transition to cage-free systems instead of wasting it on misleading and unconvincing propaganda.”

President Barack Obama!

Over the last two months, I posted blog entries examining Obama's and John McCain's records on animal and environmental issues, and concluded, based on the compiled evidence, that an Obama Administration would be the better choice on both fronts. From farm animals to endangered species, Obama is likely to take a far different and more sensitive approach to these important issues than we have seen during Bush's two terms (the second of which is still 76 days away from ending).

Obviously, animal protection is not at the top of Obama's agenda right now, as he plans his transition into the White House—nor should it be. Our country faces devastatingly serious problems at the moment, mostly centered on the failing economy and an expensive war, that need urgent attention, and Obama must prioritize some affairs of state above others in order to be an effective leader. Nevertheless, I see good things happening for animals in the next four years.

I say this because Obama is a progressive politician who is clearly committed to tackling serious environmental issues and creating a greener culture and economy. For one, we will have a leader who takes the global warming threat seriously, so we will see new policies on climate change that represent a clean break with Bush era stalling and denial. Obama also has a vision for achieving energy independence through the development of alternative fuels that will be less harmful to us and the planet than burning petroleum. Plus, he wants to foster initiatives that will bring millions of green jobs to the United States, and make us the world leader in this emerging industry.

The kind of responsible environmental stewardship Obama proposes is essential to protecting animals whose habitats have been under constant siege by blatantly destructive mining, building and farming practices for far too long. This exploitive approach is designed to generate maximum profits for giant corporations and a wealthy few at the expense of the environment and animals' lives. While this insatiably omnivorous system is likely to remain functionally intact for many years to come, at least the extreme business-first rules of the Bush years will be tempered by much-needed reforms and regulations under an Obama Administration.

Universal healthcare is another important goal that Obama will pursue as President. As a candidate, Obama made statements about the need to make fresh fruits and vegetables more easily available to children in school cafeterias, showing he is aware of the close connection between a plant-based diet and healthy living. Central to his position on healthcare is personal responsibility and preventive care, so we may see an accelerated emphasis on eating better (i.e., less meat and dairy) as his program evolves.

What we eat (especially the type of food made available to us) is closely related to the issue of farm subsidies. Historically and currently, an overwhelming amount of the agricultural subsidies handed out to farmers has been intended to effectively offset the costs of raising animals for food to keep meat, dairy and eggs artificially cheap. Government support also favors large agribusiness corporations over smaller family farms, creating an uneven playing field that has all but obliterated traditional rural culture. Obama's stated stance on subsidies is that they should go to the farmers that need them the most; specifically, independent entrepreneurs pioneering innovative ways of producing food in the most economical, ecological ways. Of course, it goes without saying that the energy conversion ratio of growing food for people is much more sustainable, in terms of the amount of resources used and pollution created, than feeding animals so we can eat their flesh; whether Obama will acknowledge and act on this principle remains to be seen.

And finally (but not incidentally), Obama quipped during his exhilarating acceptance speech that his two young daughters were smiling because now that the election is over, they can finally adopt a puppy. I'm so glad that Malia Ann and Natasha’s wish for a dog will be granted not only because they (and the rescued dog) deserve it, but also for the great example it sets for other families. Obama's mention—in the crowning speech of his political career—of a puppy for his daughters shows that he cares deeply about their happiness and respects the special emotional bonds that often develop between children and animal companions.

I have not come across any mention in my researches of whether Obama has ever had animal companions, either growing up or as an adult, but now he will be welcoming a member of another species into his family. If he has never had the opportunity to experience canine friendship, Obama will now be able to see how much joy a dog brings his girls and perhaps come to more deeply understand and appreciate the intelligence of this furry friend—and, by extension, other non-humans as a whole.

I say that because Obama just seems like the kind of guy who's open to new experiences and seeing the world from different perspectives. This is the main reason I believe our new President will be a potentially transformative ally for the animal protection movement. If we do our job right by clearly communicating our concerns and worldview in a way that interconnects animal interests with his call for change, Obama is likely to incorporate this knowledge into his vision for a renewed America and form policies that reflect this.

Am I being too idealistic here? Am I just so overwhelmed by exhausted elation, sudden relief and irrational exuberance that my perceptions are rosily distorted? Maybe, but what's the harm in that? We should all savor this moment by letting our imaginations soar to new heights while keeping our feet firmly planted in the ground of a rapidly-shifting reality. And anyway, I don't think my expectations are unrealistic. A new day is dawning, and with it the chance to see with eyes wide open what possibilities the sprawling future may hold.

Electoral Funtime! Check out these humorous video clips:

The Simpsons - Treehouse of Horror XIX: Homer's voting machine nightmare

The Colbert Report - Threatdown: Prop 2

The Daily Show - Road to the Dog House: Obama's victory promise to daughters
.