I eat meat. I like the taste of it, and each day I witness my belly’s lust for the stuff dupe my mind into concordance. It’s simple. I look at a cluster of cooked chicken strands in a shawarma sandwich and it has none of the paradigmatic signs of life or pain or loss that might normally trigger my empathy; it’s as if you had asked me to empathize with the pita bread surrounding it, inanimate and functional.

I have, however, recently become something of an armchair vegetarian. When I give my brain a platform to think on the subject, it can’t come up with any sturdy justification for meat eating. And that’s not for lack of trying. As I see it, in order to get to the meat of the issue (pardon me) we need to dust off our old-timey weigh scale and consider the relative values of the following: On one side, the wellbeing and life-continuation of a sentient animal; on the other side, the enjoyment and easy nutrition of a supremely intelligent animal (so intelligent, in fact, that this animal can actually choose how it gets its calories and nutrients).

Interactive time. I’ll set a line below and you place your finger on the spot that best represents your enjoyment of meat (-5 being you hate it; 0 being take-it-or-leave-it; and 5 being it’s the high point in your earthly existence). Yes, you can use decimals.

Good. Remember your number. This next part takes some empathizing, so close your door and concentrate. Imagine, as best you can, that you’re a pig. You have a pig brain and you like apples and you get along well with your sty-mates and can even distinguish between them and enjoy their company. Place your finger (now a trotter, I suppose) on the point that best represents your feelings about your own slaughter (again, -5 being you hate it; 0 being take-it-or-leave-it; and 5 being it’s the high point in your earthly existence).

Is your first number lower than your (inverse) second number? If yes, you might be ethically opposed to eating meat. If not, you might not be giving the pig enough credit.

This is what’s kept me awake some nights, counting sheep on their way to the slaughterhouse—that there’s a clear disconnect between what I believe and what I do. I’m not comfortable with that. So how does this refer to the title then: FTW? Well, after all this mulling over the issue—chewing the cud, as it were—I revisited a news story that had piqued my interest a month ago. It’s a story that, whenever I stare down the barrel of a Polish takeout bag, my mind keeps returning to.

About a month ago, a team of Dutch scientists successfully created the first “in vitro” hamburger, that is, hamburger meat created from stem-cells that has its hands clean of suffering. When I heard the news I was struck. You could almost visualize the two opposing poles inside of me—the ethical animal and the carnal animal—perking their ears up in unison. Could I someday tuck into an aged steak, with its unctuousness and umami, knowing that the only thing that suffered was a lab-assistant who sprained his ankle tripping over a wayward protein strand? Could I own a potbelly pig pet and not have to sue for forgiveness each time I catch one of his glassy, full eyes watching me eat a strip of bacon? Might I be able to eat meat while sitting in my armchair?

Curious to get a vegetarian’s take on the breakthrough, I spoke with David Alexander, the executive director for the Toronto Vegetarian Association. “My personal response is that I think it’s an encouraging step,” says Alexander.  “I think that if we can move towards a food system that relies more on in vitro meat and less on meat from factory farms, that would be a big win”. But while he recognizes it as a positive step for meat-eaters to take, he has his reservations: “We still have to wait and see whether this is a scalable product, whether it can, as the scientists are hoping, be done in a way that’s better for the environment.”

Then, there’s the issue of the price tag. In 2008, if you had a million dollars you could get just over a half pound of the stuff. Optimistic projections put the future production price at $2.35/lb., compared to the current production price of beef, which is about $1.85/lb. In a time when Wal-Mart can blow like a tornado through small-town businesses, simply undercutting by a few cents, one wonders what hope in vitro meat has on a larger societal level.

Plus, adds Alexander: “As for the general public, there’s a gross-out factor that’s going to have to be overcome.” He’s probably right. With GMOs occupying a place in the shared psyche once held by Frankenstein’s monster, are people really going to be lining up to buy a petri dish’s worth of ground meat? Those in the natural farming movement would probably balk at the idea of in vitro meat too, perhaps rightfully so. Gastronomes may not forego a creamy foie gras for a heaping helping of red tissues. I also don’t expect support from countries where meat eating and butchery are so normalized that most don’t even see it as a moral issue.

The many caveats aside, whatever your view on the matter—whether you’re a hog-a-day kind of carnivore, or a strict vegan—we can agree that it’s bad to cause suffering. To kill is bad too. To mitigate suffering, to stifle deaths, is therefore a win, and what it’s done, at the very least, is helped raise a dialogue surrounding something many of us—certainly me—often take for granted.

Photos courtesy of Wayne McCroy and The Valhalla Wilderness Society

Amid the whirlwind of controversies surrounding rape and consent, I’m reminded of the cliché, “raping the land”. It’s a grisly metaphor that’s come to signify the senseless destruction of an otherwise innocent place. Nowhere is that metaphor better actualized than in the laying of a pipeline through the pristine B.C. interior.

And have the pipeline companies asked for consent?

A subcontractor for TransCanada Corp. has, on two separate occasions, attempted to begin building a pipeline through the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy, a sanctuary to around 50 grizzly bear, and on each occasion been asked to desist. Now, say sources in the area, they’re trying a third time. “The Kwinimass Conservancy and the Khutzeymateen Inlet Conservancy are currently being invaded by helicopters as crews survey the route for a 4-foot diameter pipeline that would require a 200-foot right-of-way,” reads a September 5 press release from the Valhalla Wilderness Society.

“The pipeline corridor will shatter the ecological integrity of the whole area,” adds Wayne McCroy, director for VWA and also a bear biologist, “and is a threat to every grizzly bear for miles around.” As someone who’s researched grizzlies since 1985, and was instrumental in creating the sanctuary, McCroy laments the intrusion of the pipeline companies: “If this pipeline corridor is allowed through these protected areas, the first thing it’s going to do is totally violate the spirit and intent of the Park Act and set a horrible precedent for these sorts of things.”

He adds: “Why does the economy have to come first? Are we going to start building coal mines in Jasper National Park, and Nuclear plants in Banff Park?”

The company’s project, McCroy says, would require large industrial roads and a staging area to be built on the edge of the inlet fjord, in order to build a nearly 2km pipe across the inlet. The scale of the removal of pristine old-growth rainforest from the protected areas would cause irreparable damage. “No matter what kind of guidelines they promise”, he says, “there will be conflicts with grizzly bears.”

“These areas are sacred”, he adds, “and if we as a government, as a people, as a democracy, allow this to happen, it sends a message to the world that Canada doesn’t care about their environment.” Despite receiving legislative protection by BC in 1994, after an exhaustive 9-year battle with the timber industry, the Khutzeymateen grizzly bear sanctuary remains a coveted area for industries who, it seems, believe a dead bear, in the right light, looks rather like a dollar sign.

You can learn more about the ongoing struggle at their website, http://www.vws.org/

sweetclipart.com

Canada now has a working group dedicated to figuring out bee mortality. On July 9, environmental group Sierra Club Canada shared a press release announcing the group’s formation, which is made up of beekeepers, farmers, scientists and others in agri-business. The press release mentions the recent loss of 27 million bees near Elwood, Ont. In the release, Sierra Club Canada’s executive director John Bennett says, “This working group is the first real recognition of the impact of neonictinoid on bees,” referring to a pesticide still used in Canada, though banned by the European Union.

According to the Canadian Honey Council website, Canada’s bee population has dropped by 30 percent in the past year. Globally, bees are disappearing by the millions; detrimental news for our food supply—pollination is responsible for 70 percent of plants grown for produce—and agricultural business. A brochure from the council states, “In Canada it is estimated that the value of honeybees to agriculture is $1.3 billion.”

Both Ontario and New Brunswick have seen a decline in their bee populations, as have Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba – the provinces responsible for 80 percent of the country’s honey production. Both honeybees and native bumblebee populations have been affected.

Hives have been found near void of working bees, leaving only the queen and immature bees. Though bees are social creatures that stay near their hives – the workers’ bodies are not found near the homes. Predators of abandoned hives, like hive beetles and wax moths, will not even enter the affected hives. This strange phenomenon has been dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

Since 2006, different theories have circulated regarding the cause of CCD. They range from viruses, such as the Israeli acute paralysis virus and the nosema virus, to cell phones and even Osama bin Laden (yup).

Now, neonictinoid pesticides are being looked at. Used for corn and soybeans, the pesticide was authorized for commercial use by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency in 2004. It replaced lindane, which was taken off the Canadian market after it harmed bees, birds, and other wildlife. Research published in the online journal Nature Communications says neonictinoid blocks a part of the bee brain, disabling them from linking floral scents to nectar. This research contributed to the EU ban, which upset neonictinoid companies Syngenta and Bayer. In a company statement, Syngenta disputed research findings: “The proposal is based on poor science and ignores a wealth of evidence from the field that these pesticides do not damage the health of bees.” Both companies warn the ban will cost billions of euros.

And now, we’ll get to see what Canada’s new working group determines in regards to this controversial pesticide.

In Baker’s sort-of obituary it says, “In the wild sea lions live to about 10–in aquariums usually no more than 15.” So take that radicals demanding “the closure of all zoos and aquariums–denying children the opportunity to interact with amazing animals they would likely never see in the wild.”

“Let’s stop and think about [that he lived 29 years] for a moment. He lived twice the average lifespan. If a human did that he or she would have been a teenager when Canada became a nation, would have witnessed the first automobiles, been astonished at flight and journeys to the moon–not to mention the creation of the internet.”

This part of the statement reads a little weird. I think it may be addressing those that care about the animal abuse documented in a Toronto Star investigation that started a year ago. Those who care about the quality of the water the animals live in or an adequate staff amount, which was just fine in Baker’s case–he had “constant medical attention when he needed it.”

The OSPCA issued seven orders against the amusement park, but we can rest assured Baker’s death was not the park’s fault. Yes, a baby beluga named Skoot was killed by two older whales, a death that could have been protected had there been enough staff to help. Sure, maybe Kiska the killer whale’s tail has been bleeding on and off for months and the health of Smooshi the walrus is deteriorating (The animals’ former trainers are now being sued by the company for speaking out, so that takes care of that problem.) And there is reason to believe the park’s owner, John Holer, shot and killed the neighbour’s two Labrador retrievers. But this defensive statement is about Baker the sea lion; it has nothing to do about animal abuse allegations. Of course not.

Bella and two other dogs were caged and kept in a basement. Bella’s back legs were weak and her paws had grown extra toes. You wouldn’t know Bella was a rescue dog now, carrying a large fallen tree branch with her teeth. Her tail was wagging, not between her legs. And her demeanor was friendly, newly accustomed to the family’s two-and-a-half year old son. Bella’s new owner told me she’d heard the original owner was taking out his anger on the dogs after he and his girlfriend split up. Not unlike the case of Queenie, a Cane Corso in New York. She was found starving to death in her home earlier this year. The abuser was a spiteful ex-husband, whose ex-wife thankfully saved the dog.

Dog abuse can also be caused by good intentions–if good intentions mean locking up 61 dogs in two windowless buildings, left to fight each other and live in their own waste. Their owner, Manitoban Peter Chernecki told news outlets that the dogs were strays he rescued from Gull Lake’s local landfill. He insists they were not malnourished, telling CBC News, “The dogs were all fed, they all had water. The dogs were in good shape. They weren’t starving, nothing like that.”

Even so, this September, he and his partner Judith will be sentencedafter pleading guilty to seven counts of animal under the Animal Care Act and Regulations. The Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer for Manitoba cites the distress-related charges on their Media Bulletin:

• failure to provide adequate medical attention when animals were wounded or ill,
• failure to provide adequate lighting, and
• confinement of animals in a way that impaired their well-being.

The couple will be facing a maximum penalty of six months in jail, a $5,000 fine, and a five year ban on dog ownership.

Even if Chernecki was telling the truth—that the dogs had food and water—every living thing needs more than that to survive. The conditions these animals were forced to live in left their fur matted with feces. When provincial officials rescued the dogs, the buildings were treated like a hazardous materials site. Neighbours would later tell the Toronto Star about a strange odour coming from the dwellings and the black flies surrounding the area.

These creatures are famously known to be our best friends, but they were overwhelming neglected. Over half of the animals were euthanized. The Winnipeg Humane Society saved some and others were sent to a U.S. dog shelter called Dog Town. Officials say the incident was a case of hoarding. Animal hoarding can be a result of OCD, addictions or attachment disorder. Whatever the case, 61 lives were abused and 34 of them didn’t survive it.