about ADAPTT about Gary Yourofsky lecture booking comments / accolades ADAPTT video van veg books and links veg food and shoes veg restaurants veg athletes Katie's kitchen

Other Animal Rights Issues

This page contains a collection of articles featuring reflections on animal liberation, animal rights reflected in religious scripture, and editorials by Gary, as well as quotations of authors, philosophers, and other famous people concerning animal rights.

To read these articles in your order of preference, just click on your chosen title from the list below. The "Back to List" link at the bottom of the page will return you to this list. You can also follow through each of the articles in order by clicking the "Next Article" link at the bottom of the page.

Here’s What’s Wrong With Zoos:

1. Zoos are animal prisons. No more euphemisms!

2. When people say, "But zoos save endangered animals," the truth is, "99 percent of all the animals at the zoo are UNENDANGERED. If zoos were only saving endangered animals, no one would complain. But zoos are a business. In fact, zoos are usually the #1 tourist attraction in every state.

3. No matter how "natural" they make the animals’ caged-in areas, once zoos RE-CREATE an area, it is NOW artificial and UNNATURAL. No amount of architecture can RE-CREATE a NATURAL habitat of old-growth forests, fallen branches, plant species and other animal species.

4. When people say, "But the zoo is so educational for children, they learn so much," the truth is, "The only thing kids learn at the zoo is that giraffes have long necks, zebras are black and white and the monkeys have pink butts! PERIOD!" There is NO education taking place except the cruel education that teaches kids it is okay to dominate and enslave animals and put them on display for amusement, entertainment and follies. It is much more educational to read about animals from people like Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey, who studied animals in the animals’ habitats and learned about THEIR natural behaviors. Or one can learn about animals through documentaries on National Geographic. But one cannot learn about animals who are in an UNNATURAL habitat displaying UNNATURAL behaviors from the stress of confinement and lethargy of captivity, which can also lead to neurotic behaviors like pacing and self-mutilation.

5. Zoos are created for PEOPLE, not animals. Take the Detroit Zoo and look at all the space for picnics and the refreshment areas and the trolley/train. Meanwhile, the animals are being driven insane in their TINY enclosures.

6. If zoos really cared about animals, then why do they serve DEAD animals at the refreshment areas? Seems to me that if the zoo was trying to teach kindness and respect for animals, the least they could do is make sure people aren’t eating dead ones in a bun. The zoo would be an ideal place for vegan food.

7. When people say, "But animals are being poached in the wild and they live longer lives in captivity," the truth is, "longer lives never translate into happier lives." And poaching can be solved if we crack down on poaching, make hunting illegal ― since poachers are hunters and that’s where they learned the bloodsport of killing animals with guns and arrows ― protect their habitat and start sharing this planet with our four-legged companions. The solution to poaching is NOT removing animals from their land; it is removing poachers from the land. It is also done through teaching people about the vegan lifestyle. If people were vegans, there wouldn’t be a need for ivory, seal penises (aphrodisiacs) and whale blubber. It always comes back to veganism. And if the land is being demolished through sprawl, the solution is to STOP destroying the land, not removing animals from free places and putting them into an enclosure.

8. Zoos should be transformed into sanctuaries at this point in time. And that means no more visitors. No more picnic areas. No more huge walkways. No more refreshment areas. Let these animals live out their lives by giving them EVERY INCH of space on the grounds and then build ONE virtual reality auditorium where people can come and take a virtual ride through the jungles of Tanzania or the wastelands of Asia.

9. Nearly every zoo sells its "surplus" animals to canned hunting farms or research labs or circuses. And most zoos have circus acts where animals perform asinine tricks in mini arenas. "Surplus" animals are the older animals that no one wants to gawk at any longer. The reason there are breeding programs at zoos is to make sure there are always baby animals in order to attract a bigger crowd. No one wants to see old elephants or old zebras but EVERYBODY wants to see baby elephants and baby zebras. In the defense of the Detroit Zoo and Ron Kagan, Ron changed these practices at the Detroit Zoo. The Detroit Zoo no longer has animal acts or sells any animals to hunting farms, labs or circuses. Kagan is without a doubt the most progressive zoo director on this planet. In May of ’04 Kagan even agreed to release the elephants at the Detroit Zoo to an elephant sanctuary.

10. Without freedom there is no reason to exist! Zoos have taken away the animals’ freedom and made them living skeletons. The pride is gone. The will to thrive has vanished. The feeling of happiness faded. The thrill of endless miles of roaming has been usurped. Every thing that is natural to an animal, has been made UNNATURAL by the state-sanctioned animal prison system that operates for one reason and one reason alone; the almighty dollar.

11. People love to talk about animals at the zoo having veterinary care as if that justifies their imprisonment. Prisoners have medical care, but that doesn’t make people want to line up and book vacations to federal penitentiaries! Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have medical care and I don’t see people planning Christmas vacations to Cuba. Of course animals at zoos have vet care. Without a "product" to put on display, one cannot make a profit. Animals are fed and watered and receive medical treatment. Still they have no freedom, and no forests.

^Back to List |Next Article >>

Here’s What’s Wrong With Hunting:

Here is Yourofsky’s Detroit News editorial piece from April 21, 2001.
Before you read the editorial, I wanted to expound on two points.

1. The Deer Range Improvement Program (DRIP) is still in existence. And every state has a program like DRIP. It might not be called DRIP but there is a DRIP-like program all over the US.
2. Here is a detailed explanation about sex-biased hunting. If we didn’t have sex-biased hunting, there would be an even ratio of male deer to female deer. So, if someone took a sample group of 10 deer—anywhere—there would be five males and five females. The five males would impregnate the five females who would then give birth to five offspring. However, after decades of killing big bucks for their large racks, we now have ratios of 7-to-3, 8-to-2, or 9-to-1 FEMALE to male. Let’s take the 7-to-3 ratio. We now have three males impregnating seven females (we know males can impregnate as many females as they come in contact with). Then seven females give birth to seven offspring which means there are a minimum of two EXTRA babies per sample group of 10 deer because of sex-bias hunting. But, let’s go further. Wildlife biologists have confirmed that when deer, and other animals, including humans during war times, feel their population is being decimated, as is the case after hunting season ends, the majority of all the females give birth to twins or triplets. So, let’s take the twin scenario. Seven females are now giving birth to 14 babies instead of the original five (if our society didn’t hunt) thereby having 9 EXTRA babies per sample group of 10 deer. When you multiply the extra babies over the entire Michigan herd, you have an "extra" 500,000 to 700,000 deer every year. And guess how many hunting licenses they issue every year? You guessed it, between 500,000 and 700,000. Plus, that’s how the Michigan herd grew from 500,000 in the 70s to nearly 2 million nowadays. This scenario works in every state with the numbers only varying slightly.

Here’s the editorial:

I am the founder and president of Michigan’s most outspoken and uncompromising humanitarian organization, ADAPTT. Nearly 80 high schools and universities have invited me to educate and enlighten students about animal liberation, ethics, justice and kindness.

Before I refute every hunting lie, let me begin with two quotes from some well-known animal rights activists.

The first one is from Mohandas Gandhi. "The life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature is, the more it is entitled to protection from humans from the cruelty of humans"

The second quote from the great philosopher Pythagoras. "As long as humanity continues to be the ruthless destroyer of other beings, we will never know health or peace. For as long as people massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed those who sow the seed of murder and pain will never reap joy and love."

Now, contrary to the rosy picture hunters always paint about themselves—the noble hunter, the honest hunter, the caring hunter, the concerned hunter—let’s run down a quick list of noble hunting adages:

• Shoot more and shoot more often, I’m a gut-pile addict, whack ’em and stack ’em, live to hunt/hunt to live and kill on.
• And how about this comment from Ted Nugent, the world’s most outspoken animal-killer and just about every hunter’s hero: "I contribute to the dead of winter and the moans of silence, blood trails are music to my ears. I’m a gut-pile addict. The pig didn’t know I was there. It’s my kick. I love shafting animals. It’s rock ’n’ roll power. (World Bowhunter’s Magazine, Volume 1, Number 4, May 1990, page 12)"

It’s hard for animal rights humanitarians to discuss the truth about hunting when we’re constantly dealing with lies about overpopulation, lies about kindness and lies about science.

ADAPTT is fed up with hunters, their government cronies and all of their sick mentalities. The so-called "experts" who work for the DNR and the NRC are not "experts." They’re hunters and hunt supporters.

And hunting is not sound science. It is only sound fun for unsound individuals who commit cowardly acts. And it sounds to me that any sound person who possesses a scintilla of sound sense would understand that soundly truth.

To appease hunters in 1971, the DNR began serious efforts to change the "old forest" situation in Michigan. There were around 500,000 deer at that time which wasn’t enough to please the hunters. Therefore, the DNR instituted the Deer Range Improvement Program known as DRIP which called for the clear-cutting of 1.2 million acres of forest creating a more accessible food supply for deer and further stimulate reproduction. The DNR also has always issued a disproportionate number of licenses to kill male deer, because killing males instead of females causes the females’ internal reproductive mechanism to go haywire. Then, she ends up giving birth to twins and even triplets to keep the species going.

The DRIP program and sex-biased hunting has caused the deer herd to level out at around 2 million animals last year.

For the record, hunters cause an increase in deer-car accidents and contribute to crop damage.

In 1972, there were 10,742 deer-car collisions. Last year there were about 70,000. Gee, I thought hunters were hunting to reduce deer-car collisions? In 1996, The Michigan Farm Bureau even threatened to file a class-action lawsuit against the DNR for solely catering to the needs of hunters.

By the way, as deer-car accidents and crop-damage steadily increased over the years, here’s what Dave Arnold, a DNR executive, had to say to The Detroit Free Press on January 1, 1980: "Don’t lose sight of the purpose of the program. When the DNR decided several years ago to try and increase the herd to about one million animals, we knew the auto collision rate and crop damage would rise."

Here’s what Ned Caveney, a DNR state forester, had to say to the Northwoods Call a Charlevoix paper on May 26, 1991: "In Michigan, we manipulate forest habitat to produce amazingly unnatural deer numbers --- up to two million of the critters some years. That probably approaches two million more that existed before man got into the act."

In the ’90s, pro-hunting governor John Engler created The Hunting and Heritage Task Force in order to expand hunting and fishing opportunities to the public which is the same reason why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exists. By the way, the USFWS offers 290 hunting programs and 307 fishing programs on the 514 national wildlife refuges throughout the U.S. Paragraph six of Engler’s Hunting and Heritage Task Force edict states the following: "While Michigan offers widespread opportunities to hunt and fish, more could be done to encourage participation, especially in high population centers. All divisions within the DNR should work together, making hunting and fishing more accessible on both public and private lands. Where possible, expand opportunities to hunt and fish within urban parks and recreation areas."

This was the sole purpose behind the recent deer killings at our metro-parks. Not because the deer were eating up all the trillium plants. The HCMA board of commissioners wouldn’t know the difference between trillium and helium. Moreover, humans are the only animals who destroy land and take more than they need.

The metro-park killings didn’t take place because the hunters wanted to donate food to the hungry. That’s just a clever public relations gimmick to try and place a halo around those who murder animals for fun. It is far more cost efficient to feed hungry people spaghetti and stir-fried tofu, and you can feed more people that way too.

Everyone must understand that wildlife management is an illusory concept created around 100 years ago. There is no such thing as wildlife management. Humans cannot manage nature. The only managing humans should be doing is managing to stay out of the animals’ space.

And, once again, it is unjust, stupid and contemptible that the DNR and NRC—made up entirely of hunters and hunt supporters—make decisions about the fate of wild animals. That would be akin to allowing pedophiles to write child protection laws and misogynists pen domestic abuse laws?

Do hunters eat their kills? Yes. But do hunters hunt for food? No! They hunt for the thrill of the kill. They receive a rush. A super-shot of adrenaline. It’s bloodlust and dominance. It’s arrogance and selfishness. It’s hatred and brutality. It’s dishonor and viciousness. It’s murder and it’s obscene.

Hunters always use the excuse that deer are going to starve to death during the winter as if starvation wasn’t a natural process and nature’s way of controlling populations and the ecosystem’s way of working.

Starving deer provides food for scavenger animals and is nature’s way of weeding out sickly animals and allowing the strongest ones to reproduce.

A bullet to the head or an arrow through the chest is not a solution to starvation. But, furthermore, hunters don’t even shoot starving deer. They don’t make good trophies and don’t have lots of meat.

I dare anyone to show me a photograph of one hunter last year who shot one emaciated deer. Just one. Hunters shoot big bucks with big racks for big trophies. Watch their TV shows on PBS and ESPN and TNN. That’s all they talk about—big racks and big trophies.

On April 17, 1989, in The Free Press, Nugent said this about hunting: "I don’t hunt for meat. I hunt to hunt."

In 1990, Nugent said the following in his World Bowhunters Magazine: "Nobody hunts just to put meat on the table because it’s too expensive, time-consuming and extremely inconsistent."

For the record, I never threatened to harm someone’s child over the recent deer-killings in our metro-parks. I threatened to take a bullet for the deer and form my own deer-police unit to protect deer from hunters. But I did challenge about six sissified animal-killing hunters to show me how tough "tough guys" really are. I wanted to fight these bullies and put them in their place. Unfortunately, as usual, they refused to take me up on my challenge. If there’s one thing that I’ve learned in six years of intense activism, animal-abusers are cowards who would never fight someone who would fight back.

^Back to List |Next Article >>

Here’s What’s Wrong With the Circus:

The circus is an animal-slavery enterprise. The issue of an animal-oriented circus being abusive is a moot point. In his book The Circus Kings, Henry North Ringling, a founder of the The Ringling Bros., stated, "It is not usually a pretty sight to see the big cats’ trained. When the trainer starts off, the animals are all chained to their pedestals, and ropes are put around their necks to choke them down and make them obey. All sorts of other brutalities are used to force animals to respect the trainer and learn their tricks. The animals work from fear."

It is impossible to use positive reinforcement with purely wild animals like elephants, lions, bears and tigers. Violence is the only way to make wild animals perform unnatural tricks. Training sessions are comprised of beatings in order to establish superiority. Blackjacks, hooks, iron bars, whips and sticks are used to beat the pride out of animals. That’s why all circus trainers carry weapons around with them like elephant hooks—which are pick-axe like devices—and whips for the lions, bears and tigers. In 1998, during a Shrine Circus protest in Detroit, a police officer even pulled out his gun and threatened to shoot ADAPTT Founder Gary Yourofsky for displaying an elephant hook to passersby. The hooks and whips are weapons!

In the wilds of Africa and Asia, elephants walk 20 to 50 miles a day and take mud and dust baths as part of their natural behavior. However, elephants in the circus have their front, left legs and back, right legs chained up at all times when they are not on stage doing idiotic tricks. Not only can they not walk 20 to 50 miles a day, they can’t even take one step. For image reasons, some circuses have started keeping elephants behind electrical fences. But these areas are unsuitable for two pound toy poodles let alone 5,000 pound elephants.

Lions, bears and tigers fare no better. Circuses cage them like prisoners. The result of the constant confinement is sad. Most animals in the circus develop neurosis and exhibit neurotic behaviors. Elephants sway from side to side. Lions, bears and tigers pace back and forth in their cages and sometimes engage in self-mutilation.

The transportation process is ridiculous as well. Animals are shipped year-round from city to city in semi-trucks and railway cars. The semis and rail cars are without electricity, so every trip is in complete darkness, without air conditioning if it’s warm and without heat if it’s cold. Furthermore, if being chained up, caged up, dominated, humiliated and enslaved isn’t horrible enough, larger circuses—like The Shriners, Royal Hanneford and Ringling Bros.—deny animals sunlight when they perform in Midwestern arenas, even during the spring and summer months. These circuses perform for 3-21 days straight at The Michigan State Fairgrounds in Detroit and The Palace in Auburn Hills and keep animals in the warehouse area during their Michigan visits.

Vegan civil rights humanitarian Dick Gregory once said, "When I look at animals held captive by circuses, I think of slavery. Animals in circuses represent the domination and oppression we have fought against for so long. They wear the same chains and shackles." This quotation is excerpted from an editorial written by Gregory, published in the Marin Independent Journal, April 28, 1998, and which appears at the end of this section.

And an undercover investigation of the Carson & Barnes Circus shows some of the most disturbing ’training’ footage ever. The audio/video shows Tim Frisco, of the Carson & Barnes Circus, teaching future elephant trainers how to dominate elephants and make them submit. Frisco is caught on tape clearly saying, "Make him scream. Don’t touch him. Hurt him. If you’re scared to hurt him, don’t come in the barn. When I say rip his head off, rip his fucking foot off, it’s very important that you do it. When he starts squirming too fucking much, both fucking hands—BOOM (as he swings the hook like a baseball bat)—right under the chin! When he fucks around too much, you fucking sink that hook into him and give it everything you got. Sink that hook into him. When you hear that screaming, then you know you got their attention. Right here in the barn. You can’t do it on the road. I’m not going to touch her in front of a thousand people. She’s going to fucking do what I want and that’s just fucking the way it is. I am the boss. I will kick your fucking ass." (Don't take my word for it; this undercover footage appears near the end of this video.) Frisco and his two brothers learned the trade from their father, Joe Frisco, who spent a lifetime beating elephants for many circuses, including Ringling Bros.

Only support all-human circuses like Cirque Du Soleil and Cirque Ingenieux!

The Circus: It’s Modern Slavery

By Dick Gregory

When I worked as a civil rights activist with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., we sought justice through peaceful means. I was a participant in all of the "major" and most of the "minor" civil rights demonstrations of the early ’60s, including the March on Washington and the Selma to Montgomery March. Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to non-violence, and I was convinced that non-violence meant opposition to killing in any form.

I felt the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other—war, lynching, assassination, murder—but in their practice of killing animals for food and sport.

There are simple steps each of us can take to eliminate the exploitation of other beings. One is to refuse to go to any circus that uses animals. When I look at animals held captive by circuses, I think of slavery. Animals in circuses represent the domination and oppression we have fought against for so long. They wear the same chains and shackles. No matter what the circus folks tell us, there is no way to persuade an elephant to "dance" or a tiger to leap through hoops without some threat of punishment or violence. Big-cat trainers carry whips; elephant handlers use bullhooks—a sharp, hooked metal tool used to poke and jab sensitive spots. Behind the scenes, trainers often use electric stunning prods and heavy sticks to make their point.

Circus animals may be fed regularly. They may even have a veterinarian to look after them. But this doesn’t make life easy for them. They are caged and shackled and forced to work when the boss says so. They never have even a taste of freedom, but go from cage to circus ring to cage. They travel thousands of miles during the performing season, which means long hours in boxcars or tractor trailers with no room to stretch, let alone run.

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey are two of the most famous and profitable circuses in the world. Even so, it has been cited for violating the Animal Welfare Act (the only federal law protecting animals in performing shows) more than 100 times.

This year already, two Ringling animals have died on the road. One was Kenny, a baby elephant forced to perform in two shows and appear in a third in one day even though he was ill. After the third show, he lay down and died. Kenny was only 3 years old and would have stayed with his mother in the wild for up to 15 years.

The other casualty was a tiger being used in a Ringling publicity photo shoot. When the tiger attacked one trainer, the other trainer on the scene returned the animal to his cage, got a gun and shot the big cat to death.

Both of these deaths could have been prevented, and not simply because the situations should have been handled better by those in charge. They were unnecessary because the animals should not have been imprisoned in the first place. As Alice Walker writes, "The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men."

Animals and humans suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life. We don’t have to be a part of it.

^Back to List |Next Article >>

Here’s What’s Wrong With Vivisection:

Humanitarian and British author George Bernard Shaw summed up vivisection best when he once proclaimed, "Those who won’t hesitate to vivisect, won’t hesitate to lie about it as well."

Vivisection is the act of cutting, drugging, burning, blinding, shocking, addicting, shooting, freezing, infecting and surgically mutilating live animals. Vivisection also happens to be more than just bloody science. It’s a bloody fraud. Every year in the US about 20 million monkeys, dogs, cats, pigs and rabbits, and nearly 50 million mice and rats are incarcerated and infected with mutations of human diseases. They are tortured in violent burn and brain-damage re-creation experiments. Then they are observed for meaningless data and killed.

First, let’s understand that animals are a completely different bio-mechanical entity than humans. The anatomical, physiological, immunological, histological [dealing with the cell structures] and even psychological differences between humans and animals are too great to overcome. At this moment, a formula for making animal-derived research relevant to human health is non-existent. Animal research has not, can not and will not save a human lives because information cannot be extrapolated from one species to another.

Let me elucidate this point to you in a few ways. Everyday in veterinary schools all across this world, the fraud of vivisection is substantiated. After talking with several veterinarians who unfortunately have been fooled into believing that animal research can be beneficial to humans, I asked them when they were in vet school studying feline leukemia which animal they studied upon. Cats, of course, they all replied. I asked them why they didn’t study on dogs for feline leukemia. They each replied that studying on dogs for feline leukemia doesn’t make scientific sense. I then asked why would we use dogs and cats and other animals for human leukemia research. Their silence exposed the scam. Veterinarians invalidate the widespread use of species to species extrapolation because they use cats for feline leukemia research, horses for colic research, dogs for canine distemper research, and so on. They don’t use dogs for cats, pigs for dogs, and monkeys for horses. A footnote this topic. I do oppose what takes place in veterinary schools on ethical grounds. Understand, though, I cannot oppose it on scientific grounds because it is scientifically justifiable to research on the species in question when searching for treatments for that species. However, when it comes to using animals as research specimens for humans, I oppose this on scientific grounds as well as ethical grounds.

No matter how diligently animal researchers try, they can never re-create the spontaneously-occurring diseases that humans get. They can only re-create symptoms and give mutations. And, on top of that, the experiments are always done in a controlled, manipulative environment where researchers can produce whatever answer they’re looking for. If researchers want to show that there is NO link between smoking and lung cancer, no problem, just bring in some dogs—hook them up to facial mechanical devices—and force them to inhale smoke with every breath. For the record, it is true that smoking does NOT cause lung cancer in dogs. Then again, I haven’t met too many dogs who smoke in the first place. How about showing that diet drugs are safe for humans? No problem. Just bring in some rats, gorge them until they become obese and give them large doses of fenphen. For the record, the diet drug fenphen passed all rat research protocols but was taken off the market years ago after killing several humans.

Were you aware that every two seconds someone in the world dies from a disease that the medical community has known how to cure for nearly two thousand years. Every two seconds! That disease is malnutrition. But in early ’98, with a hefty grant, The Detroit Free Press reported that animal researchers were close to identifying the hunger gene in rats. Huh? How much more meaningless, idiotic and wasteful experiments will researchers conduct and more importantly will society condone? Once again, we know how to cure malnutrition. The sad truth is that medicine—in its myriad of treatments—is a commodity. If you can’t afford it, then you don’t get it. Keep this in mind as well, not one of Jerry’s Kids has ever walked or been cured even though the muscular dystrophy telethons have taken in more than $50 billion dollars since its inception. And that’s a generous estimate. It’s probably much more. The money has come from kind people who have been duped by the animal research community’s guileful, mendacious and insidious hook; this latest mouse experiment is very hopeful and promising. Those are the two favorite words of a vivisectionist; hopeful and promising. Translation—send me more money so I can continue my lifelong mission of gathering useless information.

Christopher Anderegg, who received his M.D. and Ph.D. from the Yale University School of Medicine, explained "It is impossible to predict human reactions to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals by testing them on animals." Still, vivisectionists lie about the value of animal experiments and remain unwilling to use the following 10 forms of true scientific research techniques; 1) human-based clinical research; 2) epidemiology (study, causes and distribution of human diseases); 3) cellular and molecular biology using human-based tissue and cell cultures and in vitro; 4) autopsy research; 5) biopsy research; 6) computer models using virtual reality, simulators and 3D programs; 7) mathematical models using formulas to determine drug concoctions and reactions; 8) case studies; 9) human-based DNA/genetic research; and 10) trial and error methodology. Fortunately though, some people are responding to the truth. Dozens of charities like The Easter Seals Foundation, the American Kidney Fund and The International Eye Foundation, to name a few, only use the aforementioned methods of scientific research and, more importantly, refuse to perform or fund any form of animal research. So, if the Easter Seals engages in essential non-animal-based research for birth defects and The March of Dimes engages in vivisection because it claims that’s the only way to conduct research for birth defects, I ask you, "Who’s lying?" I hope you feel the same way that I do when asked to select between two diametrically opposed positions. Personally, I always side with peace, benevolence and justice. Since healing human beings cannot be based upon violent protocols and human medicine cannot be based upon a false, duplicitous model, it’s seems clear to me who’s lying.

Polio victim Linn Pulis once eloquently said, "I would not want to promote research on animals. Fortunately, only my back is twisted, not my mind."

Dr. Richard Klausner, animal researcher and director of the National Cancer Institute, a huge animal researching entity, once said, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply doesn’t work in humans."

For some amazing information on why vivisection is unscientific, please check out Americans, Europeans, and Japanese for Medical Advancement. It is the website of Dr. Ray Greek, the world’s foremost expert in determining the value of all medical research.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak: Physician, Activist, Anti-Vivisectionist

The following piece was written by Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon in several California hospitals, and one of the world's grittiest animal rights activists. Dr. Vlasak has been arrested, and physically assaulted, simply for coming to the aid of Canadian seal pups during the annual Canadian seal massacres. (You can e-mail Dr. Vlasak by clicking here). Read what Dr. Vlasak has to say about the inefficacy and moral bankruptcy of vivisection:

"On a daily basis, animals are drowned, suffocated and starved to death; they have their limbs severed and their organs crushed; they are burned, exposed to radiation and used in experimental surgeries; they are shocked, raised in isolation, exposed to weapons of mass destruction and rendered blind or paralyzed; they are given heart attacks, ulcers, paralysis, and seizures; they are forced to inhale tobacco smoke, drink alcohol, and ingest various drugs like heroin and cocaine.

Those who perpetrate these still legal crimes, their utter and complete violence, callousness and indifference against non human animals, can’t and don’t want to see that what they are doing is not only a crime against God, Allah, Buddha, nature and life itself, but results in the suffering and death of millions of humans. The University and pharmaceutical industry’s addiction to archaic and outmoded animal research results in millions of humans getting sicker, fatter and dying of completely preventable diseases.

With all the millions of dollars wasted—and I repeat, wasted— on the scientific fraud of vivisection, the only result is that over the past half century Cancer deaths are UP, Strokes are UP, Heart Disease UP, Diabetes UP, and Obesity way UP.

I became a surgeon, a doctor, in order to save lives. I spent many years in preparation of my being able to work as a doctor; four years of university, four years of medical school, a year of internship and then five additional years of surgical residency. I, like the rest of my fellow students, was naive and impressionable. We had been brought up and brainwashed by the meat and dairy industries to think that flesh and cow’s milk made you strong and was good for you; and we had been brought up and brainwashed to believe that animal experimentation was a necessary evil and had to be done in order to save the lives of our patients. Like the billion dollar meat and dairy industry spin machine, the university system and pharmaceutical industry has done a very good job at taking young impressionable students and addicting them to outmoded and unscientific animal research.

I’d like to tell you two short stories. The first is about a five-year-old girl who came into the emergency room with appendicitis. The little girl was so obese that her breasts were as large as a girl in her teens, and she weighed twice as much as a normal child her age. She needed an emergency appendectomy and the surgery I preformed was made much more difficult by her obesity. When patients are obese, their fat layers complicate not only the actual surgery being performed, but the complication rate after surgery drastically increases. The little girl already had type II diabetes, which is now common in American children. Type II diabetes is completely preventable and has historically been seen in adults who are obese themselves. But because of the meat, dairy and sugar industries, we have a new generation of children who are sick, fat and miserable. The little girl made it through surgery and when she was recovering I sat down with her and her parents and spoke to them about a low fat vegetarian diet and drinking soy milk instead of cow’s milk, which as you know is linked to all kinds of illnesses.

I told her that a low fat vegetarian diet is proven to prevent the most common diseases that millions of people die from every single year; diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes and hardening of the arteries. The mother began to cry and said that her little girl was teased by the other kids and couldn’t even play like a normal child because of her weight; that she was always coming down with ailments and that she was lethargic and fell asleep in school. Then the mother looked at me with tears in her eyes and asked ’Why hasnt any other doctor given us this information?’ This scenario is common in my practice, and is the direct result of the absolute power, greed and corruption of the meat and dairy industries.

The next story is about my introduction into the world of vivisection, while I was a surgical resident. I was told that I could make a name for myself if I published papers and experimented on animals; and I was told that universities were given LOTS of money by the government as long as they continued to do experiments on animals. Being the naive young doctor and wanting to follow the lead of others, I did a year of vivisection and visited animal labs throughout the country. What I learned and what I saw with my own eyes was mind-boggling. I learned that 85% of all the data gathered from animal experiments was literally thrown away because it was of no use to anyone, human or non-human; never even published, much less used to help people. Almost all of the remainder of this data was never found useful for human healthcare.

And that 1 or 2% of data that was possibly, one day, maybe going to be useful in helping people? That data could have been obtained more accurately and cheaply using modern, progressive non-animal methods. Then I learned that the pharmaceutical companies spent millions of dollars taking doctors out to dinner and paying for lavish vacations for them and their families, and in turn these researchers were to manipulate animal experiments to get the results that the drug industries wanted. Then I learned that the way universities get grant money isn’t by coming up with the best and most scientific research methods, but by continuing to use animals as a model because of the billions of dollars made in the vivisection industry. I learned that the vivisection industry is like the mafia; the scientists and drug companies who engage in animal research will do whatever it takes to continue the practice even though it not only harms humans, but causes enormous agony and suffering to the animals being experimented on.

Greed, corruption and absolute power; these are the things that drive the vivisection industry; NOT saving lives or preventing disease. In a world that has discovered gene expression and can look at diseases on the cellular and molecular level, animal experimentation has no place—and I repeat, NO PLACE—in 21st Century science. We now know that based on molecular biology and gene expression, a drug that reacts a certain way in a male rat, may react completely differently in a female rat. But what about primates that share 99% of our DNA? It’s not the 99% that’s important, but the 1% that makes the difference in a non-human primate reacting totally differently to a medicine or surgical procedure than a human primate.

We are not going to save the lives of our fellow humans by using archaic, outmoded animal experimentation. The scientists who still use animals in their research are not only frauds, but are addicted to an outdated form of research. Colin Blakemore for instance, who has sewn kittens’ eyes closed for fun and profit, is no more of a true scientist than the mad scientists in the monster movies we watched in the 50s. Blakemore is not a doctor. Like most animal experimenters, he is simply a wanna-be medical doctor who didn’t have the social skills nor the brains to make it through medical school. And those medical doctors who are performing experiments on animals are simply the instruments of a corrupt university system and the pharmaceutical industry."

Anti-Vivisection Resources on the Web

Americans, Europeans, And Japanese For Medical Advancement: founded by Dr. Ray Greek, a physician and pre-eminent scientist who adamantly opposes medical research on animals
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM): a group of doctors who advocate preventative medicine and true scientific research
PCRM's Humane Seal of Approval: a list of charities that refuse to torture animals in archaic, barbaric and unscientific experiments
National Anti-Vivisection Society: this page provides a list of companies that do not torture animals in archaic, barbaric and unscientific experiments
VeganProducts.MyArbonne.com: Arbonne International does not vivisect and has tons of hygiene products that contain no animal products. You can also email Theresa, an Arbonne rep in Michigan, directly at mattismama@aol.com

^Back to List |Next Article >>

Empathy, Education, and Violence: A Time for Everything

By Gary Yourofsky

NOTE: The following piece was first written in 1997. It was updated in 2005.

For the first time in history, animal rights activists are facing an era of unprecedented repression by the US and UK governments. With active ALF liberators hard to find, those who publicly support the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) along with former ALF activists have been receiving the brunt of the discriminatory power that these governments routinely wield against social justice activists.

"Terrorists or Freedom Fighters", a recent collection of ALF essays edited by UTEP philosophy professor Steve Best has ignited debate about the nonviolent liberation and arson tactics of the ALF, and the violent threats of injury or death aimed at those who directly abuse animals put forth by The Animal Rights Militia (ARM), Revolutionary Cells, Justice Department and Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a California trauma surgeon who espoused violent views to Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes in November ’05.

The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works conducted a McCarthy-esque hearing on May 18, 2005, about Dr. Best and other activists ― including me ― because of our outspoken support of the ALF. On August 24, 2005, the British Home Office (BHO) permanently banned the Texas professor from entering the UK because of the "intellectual justification" he routinely gives on behalf of the ALF. Former ALF liberator Rod Coronado and Animal Defense League of LA activists Vlasak and Pamelyn Ferdin were banned by the BHO in ’04.

Most people are unaware of this, but the great pacifist Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, "I am only effective as long as there is a shadow on White America of a black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail." King’s position on arson ― not just the fire of the incendiary Molotov cocktail ― might surprise most people as well. He believed arson was a nonviolent act because buildings ― made of brick, wood, metal or some other insentient material ― were incapable of feeling pain.

When it came to activists engaging in violence or people doing nothing at all, King and the other great pacifist Mohandas Gandhi both chose violence. Please do not misinterpret what they meant. King and Gandhi were the utmost pacifists and firmly believed in nonviolent activism. However, both iterated time and again that something (violence) would be better than nothing (apathy).

I feel the same way. Without question, I prefer nonviolent activism like classroom presentations, tabling events, leafleting, sign-carrying protests, op-ed pieces, undercover investigations and civil disobedience. It takes a wider array of tactics, however, to achieve substantive change. Given the choice of apathy or someone liberating mink, burning down a research torture-laboratory, or killing a vivisectionist or other DIRECT murderer of animals, I will choose the aforesaid actions over apathy any day of the week.

Radical tactics have been righteously implemented throughout history to produce immediate results. The Allied Forces violently broke down the gates of Hitler’s death camps, killing Nazis in the process, and forever destroying the gas chambers of Buchenwald and Auschwitz. When the North took up arms and violently killed thousands of Southern racists, those justifiable homicides committed on behalf of black slaves were unchallengeable. Gandhi achieved Indian independence even though many Indians killed British soldiers, rioted in the streets and routinely set fires. The Black Panthers tactics of intimidation and Malcolm X’s "by any means necessary" philosophy did not hinder the civil rights movement or the exaltation of Dr. King. In fact, when asked to stop X’s radicalism, King replied, "Don’t ask me to stop Malcolm X. Malcolm X will stop when racism stops!"

As one of the nation’s most outspoken animal rights activists, I take the same approach. When a meat-eater or news reporter whines, "The ALF breaks laws and burns buildings and the ARM supports violence," I simply reply, "The ALF and ARM will stop when the abuse and murder of animals stops!"

Those who actively seek to end injustices should always be praised, not vilified. Gandhi once said, "There have been murderers and tyrants, and at times they have seemed invincible. But in the end they always fall. Always!" Arsons, liberations, or acts of intimidation and justifiable homicide cannot impede the animal rights movement because nothing can hinder the truthful, benevolent push to liberate animals from their human captors.

When the ALF liberates animals and makes an immediate difference in their lives, I am not sure how any rational individual does not side with the ALF. Should we instead wait for politicians and society to gradually find time to fit animals into their greedy, selfish agendas? In the same way Harriet Tubman’s Underground Railroad liberated blacks by stealing the "property" of whites, the ALF liberates animals by stealing the "property" of furriers and vivisectionists.

Furthermore, during the hundreds of ALF arsons over the last 30 years, no human has ever been injured or killed. This spotless record of economic sabotage is not accidental either. Members of the ALF adhere to a strict code of nonviolence, and have risked their freedom ― harming no one in the process ― for the animals who have no freedom.

Tens of thousands of foxes and mink have been given the chance to avoid anal electrocution and neck-breaking by the reprobates who provide skin to the fur industry, while dogs and mice have been liberated from sick, vicious experimenters and placed in loving homes.

However, since violence is an essential part of activism, even if an abuser of animals perished during a fire or other form of direct action, I would unequivocally support that, too. Empathy is not for those who enslave and kill animals, the guilty victimizers. Empathy is for innocent victims, the animals. Animal rights is not about being nonviolent to humans anyway, even though nearly every activist embraces a nonviolence-to-human-ethic. Animal rights is about freeing animals from violent, avaricious, heartless thugs who profit off of animal misery and murder.

It is important to remember that the animal rights movement has been completely nonviolent since its inception yet people still view us with derision. Luminaries, oracles and contemporaries like Pythagoras, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Tolstoy, Plutarch, da Vinci, Dick Gregory, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Alice Walker, Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez have espoused the compassionate message of animal rights. Animals still remain enslaved nations killed by the billion. If peacefully protesting and educating the masses were the sole factors for compassionate change, animals would have been freed by now. Sadly, love does not always conquer hate. Reason does not solely conquer ignorance, or flat-out stupidity. Nonviolent protest does not always conquer institutionalized violence.

Those who truly care about animal rights must begin to view all animals as family members. We should try and reason with those who enslave and kill animals in order to liberate our nonhuman family. But that process alone cannot produce freedom. The time has come to forcibly free our family members from their captors, even if that means injuring or killing someone in the process. It is not violent to physically stop someone from killing someone else. Using force to stop abuse or murder is a noble, justifiable act of vicarious self-defense.

Liberations, arsons or violence only evoke negative reactions because very few people ― activists included ― truly view cows, pigs, chickens, rabbits, mice and deer as family. Until everyone accepts that animals deserve the same treatment as our mothers and fathers, the killing of animals will not cease, and people will continue to condemn activists, instead of abusers.

Once animals are viewed as family, it becomes appropriate to do whatever it takes to gain their freedom and stop their torture. Society disagrees with liberations, arsons or violence on behalf of animals because no one thinks animals are worthy of such generosity. I’ve often said that if I liberated children from a pornography ring in 1997, I would have been carried down the streets of Detroit as thousands cheered in support. Instead, I liberated 1,542 mink from an animal concentration fur camp, spent 77 days in maximum security and was branded a terrorist.

If mentally-retarded children were in tiny cages at the National Institutes of Health waiting to be mutilated, blinded, burnt and killed by a vivisectionist, the tactics of the ALF and ARM would be unassailable. If black people were being hung upside down at a slaughterhouse as someone sliced their throats and dismembered their bodies, society would embrace the tactics of the ALF and the Revolutionary Cells. If our mothers and sisters were traipsing through the woods as someone fired an arrow or a bullet destined for their chest, then we would all give thanks to the compassionate revolutionaries who call themselves ALF and Justice Department activists. If you honestly placed yourself in any animals’ position, anything would be acceptable to prevent your torture, enslavement and eventual murder.

This piece is not a call to abandon nonviolent activism and solely take up arms. The violent actions of past social justice movements were carried out by only a few, just like the violent actions of the animal rights movement that will one day be carried out by only a few.

Just to make everyone aware of my activism, in the late ’90s, I was arrested 13 times for civil disobedience and direct action, including the ALF liberation of 1,542 mink from the Eberts Fur Farm in Blenheim, Ontario. As of 2008, I’ve given 1,403 lectures about ethical veganism in 134 schools in 27 states to more than 35,000 carnivorous students because I believe veganism and education are the most effective forms of activism. I have yet to engage in violence but believe violence has its place alongside peaceful education and nonviolent protest. It is the amalgam of these methods that will result in the eventual freedom of animals.

What You Give Is What You Should Get

By Gary Yourofsky

The following editorial appeared in The Shield—the U. of Southern Indiana school paper—on Thursday, January 24, 2008.

Ever since Pythagoras promulgated peace to our planetary companions some 2,600 years ago, the animal rights community has utilized pacifism in its attempts to facilitate substantive change. As a proponent of education, my activism is no different. Each year I give around 250 lectures on ethical veganism to over 10,000 students explaining that victims of discrimination, slavery and murder come in all shapes and sizes. Many students thank me for removing their blinders and subsequently eliminate meat, cheese, milk and eggs from their diets. After all, consuming the cut-up corpses of murdered animals—and the things that ooze out of their bodies—is hardly an enlightened way of living.

However, author Sam Harris explained a major flaw with pacifism activism: "When your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand."

So, while my lifestyle and lectures are based on compassion, those who refuse to stop harming animals force me to support 'eye for an eye' and 'by any means necessary' philosophies.

In a world full of lying politicians and deceitful public relations, I hope you'll appreciate my willingness to unapologetically say what I'm about to say.

Empathy should only be reserved for innocent beings—human or nonhuman. Institutionalized violence doesn't simply vanish with a peaceful protest, a dose of logic and whole lotta love. If people continually deny animals their inherent right to be free, radical tactics are necessary and justified. Physically preventing an abuser from committing abuse and killing a murderer to stop the murder are noble, vicarious acts of self-defense.

This is why furriers—who anally electrocute foxes or break the necks of mink—deserve the same treatment in return. The same goes for anybody who wears fur. If you pay someone to commit acts of cruelty, then you are complicit and, therefore, just as guilty.

Rapists, murderers and child molesters should be vivisected, executed and dissected, allowing researchers the opportunity to gather useful information that would actually benefit human health for a change. I see nothing wrong with capital punishment because if you willfully destroy someone else's life, then you automatically relinquish yours.

I believe in God but am vehemently opposed to organized religion and its attempts to sanctify cruelty in His name. Harming or killing animals is Satan's milieu. Christians, Jews and Muslims need to represent their faiths through peaceful compassionate living, not the barbaric tradition of meat-eating or the inane rituals of singing songs to the sky, growing long beards, covering the head in cloth or dipping each other in water.

The next two paragraphs can be found on my adaptt.org website in the What's Wrong with PETA and HSUS? section. They're the reason why the USI administration canceled my lecture last year and why journalism Professor Chad Tew and his students fought to change school policy and bring me back. Tew knew I had a First Amendment right to speak on campus.

"Sometimes I think the only effective method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur farm. Then people would be awakened from their soporifc states and finally understand the horrors that are inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal!

Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that fathers accidentally shoot their sons on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly. Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice of vivisection."

I'll be lecturing at USI on Tuesday, January 29, in the Mitchell Auditorium from 7-9 p.m.

^Back to List |Next Article >>

Here’s What’s Wrong With PETA and HSUS:

Claudette Vaughan is the editor of abolitionist-online, Britain's most outspoken animal liberation website. She has interviewed dozens of radical activists over the years, including Dr. Jerry Vlasak and Pamelyn Ferdin. Following is an interview of Yourofsky that she conducted in August 2006, in which Yourofsky discusses violence, PETA, HSUS and the state of the animal rights movement.

CV: What are your views on violence and the animal rights movement?

GY: Empathy, Education, and Violence: A Time for Everything answers this question clearly and unambiguously.

CV: The dismal failure of these heads of the animal rights and animal welfare organizations that couldn't or wouldn't offer resistance to the current state of things for animals has now contributed to this current cul-de-sac the movement finds itself in. Isn't it long overdue, especially now that new people are coming through, that we demand a regime change away the former administrators of the current animal rights movement, even though the media still churns out the same names as the "radicals" of the movement?

GY: PETA and HSUS are a hindrance to the animal liberation movement. Their endless compromises, persistent shenanigans and myopic tactics do NOT bring animals closer to freedom. I am tired of being silent about it. As long as PETA and HSUS exist, animals will remain enslaved by the billion. Ingrid Newkirk needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth right along with every other person who DIRECTLY murders animals with premeditation. Newkirk, a serial cat killer, goes out of her way to trap homeless, healthy cats in the Norfolk, Virginia area and then kills them in a shed located on the grounds of PETA's Norfolk headquarters. She has maniacally deified herself as the supreme arbiter of life and death, and convinced her clique that all homeless cats (and dogs) should be murdered.

Newkirk rationalizes her psychosis by claiming that if the animals die then they are no longer suffering. Everyone understands that dead animals (and humans) no longer suffer. But that approach is akin to America's invasion of Iraq. U.S. mercenaries continue to kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians all the while proclaiming that Iraqis won't be suffering anymore under the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. Rational people want to end the pain and suffering that animals endure, and eradicate dictators like Saddam (and his sons Uday and Qusay). However, killing innocent civilians in Iraq, and murdering homeless animals by preemptively assuming that one day they might suffer, or believing that they suffer without human companionship, is insanely delusional. If this movement rightfully condemns the meat and dairy industries for murdering cows and chickens, then this movement has to condemn PETA for the murder of homeless dogs and cats.

Sadly, I see no difference between Newkirk and a hunter like Ted Nugent, or a slaughterhouse designer like Temple Grandin. They all prey on innocent creatures. They all rationalize their homicidal acts with diabolical excuses. They are one and the same; skulking serial killers who wouldn't know the meanings of honesty, compassion or decency if Noah Webster came back from the dead and bit them on their asses! Newkirk has turned PETA into an efficient killing machine mirroring the companies—like Neiman Marcus or HLS—she claims to despise. Furthermore, under Newkirk's guidance, she has single-handedly turned the animal liberation movement into a mockery with her naked women campaigns and cartoon-costumed protests. And when rational vegans condemn PETA's irrational approach, Newkirk tries to fool everyone with trite lines about "animals suffering without PETA" or "animals suffering from infighting in the movement". Those aforementioned comments are deceptive and only allow PETA to continue on its course of destruction.

Doing some good while intentionally doing bad is neither acceptable nor beneficial. Each person or group must always do good. You can make mistakes along the way, and rectify them wherever possible. Any sincere, well-meaning person might bring the circus placards to the vivisection protest, or misspell someone's name in an op-ed piece. Similarly, having once thought otherwise, people can come to realize that they should be focusing their efforts on education instead of lobbying, and finally understand that breaking laws is actually a valuable tactic to achieving liberation. But killing homeless animals by the thousands is more than a mistake. It is serial murder!

As for HSUS, they are just as destructive as PETA. Besides Wayne Pacelle's $300,000 annual salary as the new head honcho of HSUS, his obsession with lawmaking is a waste of time. He loves to cite examples about the value of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 19th Amendment of 1920 that gave women the right to vote. But he doesn't understand that these laws were only approved BECAUSE of all the violent and nonviolent protests, and because people took the issue of inequality to the streets FIRST. It was the culmination of violent and nonviolent protests, countless acts of civil disobedience, and thousands of marches that created WIDESPREAD, MASSIVE support for the laws to be passed and, most importantly, enforced. Pacelle wants to jump the gun and pass laws even though society doesn't understand the immorality of speciesism. It's all fucking backwards.

I will not deny that a few people have been prosecuted with anti-cruelty legislation, but no one has ever been prosecuted for any SERIOUS atrocities against the billions of animals killed in slaughterhouses or research labs. There are no Saddam Husseins on trial for the mass murder of animals. If anti-cruelty laws were effective, then everyone at a Smithfield slaughterhouse would be arrested and jailed. Every vivisectionist at HLS would be arrested and imprisoned for life.

Furthermore, what's the point of punishing someone after the fact anyway? It's only revenge. Don't misconstrue what I am saying. I enjoy revenge as much as the next person, but I want to get to a point where there's no revenge. Revenge becomes unnecessary when there is no wrongdoing in the first place. This is where we need to be. There will always be people who have no morals and no conscience and who will commit heinous acts like Nugent and Newkirk, and we need to be vengeful with these serial killers. But we have to enlighten the masses first via education, direct action, civil disobedience, and violent and nonviolent activism, in order to eradicate the majority of the killings. We can't seek to prosecute a few psychos who punch dogs in the face at vivisection torture-houses while billions of animals are being massacred for sandwiches, and billions of humans are mindlessly taking part in the massacre. If we opened people's eyes with education or violent force, then that would reduce the murders and be a BIGGER victory than any paltry law the HSUS got passed.

CV: It can be argued that the "Humane Meat" Movement led by Newkirk's PETA and Pacelle's HSUS has a case to answer in that the Humane Meat Movement, running along side the Animal Rights Movement is doing far more damage than what introducing violence into the AR Movement ever will.

GY: As ethical vegans, it's logical for us to proclaim that the only nice slaughterhouse is an empty slaughterhouse. This statement, however, is often challenged by those who believe that baby steps and compromise are the only ways to move forward. It is my belief that baby steps and compromise prevent any forward movement whatsoever. These tactics actually allow people to continue the killing with a clearer conscience. For example, in 2000 the state of Florida banned the use of gestation crates for sows. Florida, however, did NOT ban the abuse of pigs, the murder of pigs or the consumption of pig flesh. They removed one piece of torture, which is akin to asking a slave-owner 200 years ago not to rape female slaves on Sundays, nor beat male slaves on Fridays. The slavery problem would not have been solved if people spent their time asking for absurd baby-step concessions. The murder of pigs will not be solved by asking the murderers to no longer confine the females in gestation crates. People in Florida have a mistaken belief that pigs are no longer being abused because crates have been banned; therefore, it is okay to eat pork chops and ham.

When we deny every animal's inherent right to fly, swim and run freely via compromise and concession, we are being cruel and dishonest, because no animal would choose to be enslaved and killed. Many people who purport to care for animals rarely apply empathy to examine the issue from the animals' point of view. Empathy allows people to understand an injustice without over-analyzing the issue, especially when those in power deem the victims unworthy and expendable, something Hussein, GW Bush, slave-owners, meat-eaters, and organizations like PETA and HSUS have all done to their respective victims.

In the book DOMINION, Matthew Scully explained that people have a choice to be radically kind or radically cruel. This illuminates the hypocrisy of the meat-eating animal welfare movement, which seeks to regulate the enslavement and killing of billions of animals via "humane slaughter" laws. By definition alone, slaughter is radically cruel. Therefore, it can never be humane. Taking an animal's life for profit or preference is a crime. Killing "nicely" does not exonerate a killer from the killing. Buying meat, milk or eggs from organic or free-range farms doesn't exonerate the consumer from complicity either. From the animal's point of view, the killer and the consumer are one and the same.

Fortunately, de-programming the perfunctory ways of meat-eaters is possible. During my annual vegan lecture tour (250 talks for 10,000 carnivores in college classrooms), thousands of people convert to veganism, vegetarianism or significantly reduce their meat, cheese, milk and egg intake. Reduction and abolition are the only options to ending a massacre. Regulating torture, abuse and murder does not reduce nor eliminate torture, abuse and murder. Regulations are an explicit stamp of approval to let the carnage continue unabated because compassionate ways of enslaving and killing billions of animals do not exist.

CV: In SATYA (still waiting for that hard question from them) March 05 article titled A Whole New Alternative" 'Compassionate Meat At Whole Food Prices, Bruce Friedrich from PETA had the sheer nerve to say "{PETA} 'we're trying to ensure that farmed animals are treated as well as dogs or cats until they're killed'". First of all PETA kills pound animals (cats and dogs) and secondly I don't want Bruce Friedrich speaking on my behalf since there's a presumption even today that PETA is the "voice of the international animal rights movement". What are your views Gary?

GY: It's a damn shame that PETA has become synonymous with the phrase animal rights...in the same way Kleenex has become synonymous with the word tissue or Levi's with the word jeans. PETA does not and should not represent the animal rights movement. They are an absolute embarrassment. They have become a destructive enterprise that murders dogs and cats, praises animal killers like slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin, exploits and degrades women in disgraceful (and ineffective) naked campaigns, and believes that revolutions can be won in the boardroom instead of realizing that revolutions are only won in the classroom, on the street corner or in the jailhouse! PETA has turned itself into a corporation like the environmental corporation that Greenpeace has become, and the civil rights corporation that is the NAACP. All three groups used to be hungry for progress, and used to demand change, and never back down nor compromise. However, they all decided along the way to focus their crosshairs on wallets and purses instead of scumbags who commit injustice.

CV: Where's the cavalry? I mean where's the cavalry for the weak, the disabled, the innocent and the defenseless and why did it never arrive in the animal rights movement?

GY: Apathy, consumerism and complacency are powerful opiates. Even those who care enough to adopt a vegan lifestyle continue to selfishly love their jobs, houses and cars so much that they refuse to risk their freedom for those who have none. This is why there have been so few Gandhis, Malcolm X's and Cesar Chavez's. It's not that they were superhumans who possessed magical powers. They were simple humans who were determined to eradicate injustice at any cost. We all have the capacity to be a Gandhi, an X or a Chavez. We simply have to let go of that disgusting trait of selfishness and walk the talk. Be the epitome of altruism. Gurdjieff, the Great Russian Seeker of Truth, explained that life is the payment of promissory notes one makes while in a waking sleep. He said that humans spend the majority of life going through the motions, making promises (marriage, employment) that they never intended nor wanted, and then suffering from the burden of fulfilling those unintended commitments. Commitments to our jobs, our homes, to our spouses and family members are ignoble. The only commitment should be to justice by any means necessary.

CV: Has there been a deliberate ploy to dumb down Americans since the 1970's? Take the media's analysis on Iraq for example. Anyone who resists Amerikan foreign policy is a "terrorist" as are animal rights activists within Amerika. And now the US has a president who embodies this overly simplistic analysis. Your comments on the current political state in the US today.

GY: The USA defines the word imperialism. GW Bush commits evil acts, such as lying and murdering, on a daily basis. But what's even scarier than Bush's iniquity is that 58,000,000 Americans voted him into office! Sometimes I am not sure if I am more embarrassed to be human or more embarrassed to be an American. Americans have been turned into walking zombies via religion, government, schools and the media. Buy this product or go to this university and you'll be happy. Wear this cologne and you'll get laid. Eat these dead animals and you'll be a man. Believe in this invisible being in the sky, and you'll go to a pretty place after you die. Sometimes I think that the only effective and productive method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur farm. Then people would be awakened from their soporific states and finally understand the horrors that are inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal!

Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that fathers accidentally shoot their sons on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly. Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice of vivisection.

CV: Is not the problem the age old problem (where the real crime and criminal activity) lies in complicity and the silence of the by-standers, vegan or not?

GY: The hate that humans hold toward animals is matchless. It is impossible to overcome with compromise, or with only entreaty. It is so vicious, aseptic and bitter that a thousand peaceful Gods and Goddesses couldn't eradicate it. This is why corporations like PETA and HSUS must be destroyed. And why their naked women campaigns and inane cartoon costumes must be stopped. This is why violence must be employed at some point, in association with education and civil disobedience and direct action. And this is why we must not love the enemies of animals. I firmly believe in trying to educate and deprogram the direct killers of animals—the vivisectionists, the hunters, the slaughterhouse workers, the CEOs of every company in the meat, dairy and egg industries—and the indirect killers of animals (meat-eaters). However, when education and civil disobedience and protests do not work, actions have to be stepped up.

The callousness of the human species cannot be solely washed away with a leaflet and an op-ed piece. Humans need to be kicked off their pyramid of domination. As activists, we should realize that we work for the animals and the animals alone. We should NEVER seek human approval nor human adoration. We should care less about sanctimonious verbigeration vomited out from judges, prosecutors, police officers, media outlets and politicians. We should take action, and MAKE justice reign. We should not wait for change. We should not ask for change. And we should not beg for freedom. It must be demanded!

CV: How can total animal liberation occur without bloodshed and should the movement not turn away from this indisputable fact but instead accept it, if one is serious about engaging in the fight for animal liberation?

GY: Since the majority of people are closed-minded, rude, incoherent, incognizant and just plain mean, and since logic and compassion can not solely deprogram and educate the masses, it is time to resort to powerful tactics that make them understand. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Love does not solely conquer hate, reason does not solely conquer ignorance or flat-out stupidity, and compassion cannot always eradicate institutionalized violence. Any thoughts disputing the latter are only textbook fantasies. The majority of Gandhi's followers rioted in the streets, killed British soldiers of oppression and routinely set fires. The Black Panthers and Malcolm X's BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY brand of activism were integral to the civil rights struggle. Vitriol was rampant. Even MLK's pacifist followers chose to riot and set fires in the streets after his assassination. So much for pacifism in the times of heated moments, huh? I am only bringing up these examples because so many people in the AR movement are naïve when it comes to substantive change. Power concedes nothing without demand. And unethical people don't always change their unethical ways with a smile and a dose of logic.

CV: Can you talk about your work on going into schools and talking about veganism?

GY: The ADAPTT Lecture Tour page of my website, www.adaptt.org, discusses my vegan education tour in detail.

About Yourofsky's Dissociation from PETA

NOTE FROM ME: The following letters were sent to me and/or PETA shortly after PETA decided not to fund my tour after 2005:

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 7:21 PM

This is awful news. My students loved your talk this year. Unless you say otherwise, I will write a letter to PETA. You are doing terrific work. You're an inspiration. I very much hope it somehow can continue.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 7:47 PM

Sorry to hear the sad news. You've done much more than most to change people's outlook. But I know that whatever happens, you will continue to be a positive influence for animal rights. Best regards, Mike

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 8:08 PM

NOTE FROM ME: I have not spoken in this prof's classes since 2002!

I am deeply saddened by this news and by the obvious hurt and angry tone in your note. I can't imagine how betrayed you must feel, and the irony of this happening as a result of PETA. I was just talking about you yesterday to some friends in Maine. You are such an amazing guy and have truly changed bits and pieces of the planet, lecture by passionate lecture. There has to be another way to keep you talking. I don't know what it is but I'm NOT taking your advice and assuming you've thought of everything. I think you should get all of your collected friends out here thinking for you. It's a program that is far too valuable to be "discontinued". Please don't lose touch, OK? I still want to do the biography.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:12 PM

I am sure that this is just one of about half a gazillion emails you are sure to get, but I am truly sorry about funding. Your lectures were a really crucial part of making my classes that much better and I truly believe that they had an immense impact. You have affected so many lives already; it is too bad that in the immediate future you will be set back. Nothing else has ever been as effective in encouraging my students to rethink their attitudes on any moral issue. If you are ever able to re-garner funds again in the future, let me know. If not, I know that you will always be fighting for justice in some capacity. I know it will just sound like empty words, but I really do want to thank you in a deep deep way for your work. It matters. Even if you do nothing else, the work you have already done is more than most people do in a lifetime.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:45 AM

I am truly sad that you can't continue your tour. You are a great speaker and a man with values, two very rare things. You spoke to my class at Hunter College, Greg Morris's reporting course. My name is Leonardo, I don't know if you remember, if you don't it doesn't matter anyways, because I remember you and probably will for a long time. I decided to become vegan after your presentation and many pieces of the puzzle fell into place ever since your lecture. I admire you for what you have done and I'm sure you'll be able to find some other way to focus your energy and passion for your most noble causes, because noble they are, truly. I am outraged that PETA would do something like what they did to you. Then again, unfortunately I'm not surprised. It is a fairly large organization and probably run like a company. Money is everywhere, it is the cancer of our society and it has been running the show since the beginning. I'm sorry that it had to affect you so deeply. If it helps, I have followed a vegan diet ever since, and though it hasn't been long, I am confident that I will continue because I share the same frustrations that you do about the current state of affairs, and veganism is a wonderful way to do your part. So I thank you for what you have done, and it would be a real shame if you couldn't continue.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:50 AM

Gary -- That's a shame. You can't even count on the 'radical' groups anymore. Sometimes it seems like everyone is a sell-out. (I'm seeing this on many fronts, incidentally). I'll have to cancel my PETA membership now, but not before they hear from me personally.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:54 AM

I'm terribly sorry to hear this, Gary -- may you find your benefactor soon, so we can all have you back asap!

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:12 AM
To: IngridN@peta.org

I am a professor at the University of Central Florida and teach crime and deviance courses. I have written seven books and included a section on Gary and animal rights in a few of them. I am writing you to implore you to reconsider the elimination of his tour/presentation funding. He has visited my classes for a number of years now (over 6 I think) and has changed many students (and faculty) views, eating habits and lives. The meager salary he draws and the travel expenses bring much more positive attention to PETA than so some of your other venues. I have grown to respect him and consider him a friend. More importantly, he is a HUGE advocate and friend to the animals. You could not have a more effective (or cheaper) spokesperson. While he may not bring in large donations immediately, he brings a huge number of new PETA devotees who later contribute in many different ways. I am unaware of the reason(s) for your decision, and they are, perhaps, largely irrelevant. I would, however, like for you to reconsider. Despite his forceful personality (or maybe because of his strength), he is a huge asset to PETA and animals everywhere. His lectures in central Florida have grown from just my classes to over 15 different classes at several different universities. Attendance is always packed and often I have people standing in the aisles. Students bring parents, friends and even other professors to hear him speak. Strangers approach me and ask "when is the PETA guy coming? Can I come to your class that day?" In short, he is in high demand. I personally consider it a huge loss not having him lecture any longer. I can put you in contact with literally hundreds of my students who he has influenced to become vegan or vegetarian. Isn't that the purpose? Please feel free to call me or contact me if I can help change your decision in any way. His departure will be a huge loss for PETA and, more importantly, for animal rights.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 11:43 AM

oh gary, that is just awful! i am shocked and very upset. it seems like such a minimal cost for the amount of change that you encourage; not to mention that your lectures surely make students check out peta's website and perhaps even donate money or become members. this is obviously a great mistake. I have always thought that we need a big organization that can afford to fund others, but perhaps they have gotten too big that they no longer see their original vision. I plan to write them about this decision and i hope others will as well. surely they must realize what they are losing!

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:18 PM
To: info@peta.org

You cut off Gary Yourofsky. Great. Wonderful. PETA did nothing to stop my students from blithely continuing a lifelong slaughter campaign against animals except provide funding for Gary to come to my classes and lecture. And I can tell you this for a fact: I talk to and overhear numerous young people who say that, until they heard Gary's lecture and saw his video, they never thought twice about their diet and its impact on animals. about their diet and its impact on animals. I also know for a fact that the very people saying this turned vegan, vegetarian or significantly cut down on their intake of meat. Gary's lectures save animals; there is no question. By comparison, the cost of your poorly placed Pamela Anderson billboards in Fresno probably equaled the cost of Gary's lecture tour. And what impact did the billboards have for animals? None that I can tell. All I heard from both animal sympathizers and animal abusers was ridicule of the billboards. I fear PETA is joining the ranks of other mainstream groups for whom the organization is more important than the mission. Let's be serious. This isn't about whether you can afford to keep Gary on staff. This is about your fear of the fallout from recent Senate hearings. They called you out and now you're hiding when you should fight! Well I tell you this; I have absolutely zero use for so-called environmental or animal rights groups who run in fear when the very forces they are supposed to be resisting successfully intimidate them. If you had the guts PETA used to have when it fought for animals you would put Rod Coronado on the staff too and let them both tour the country telling people the unvarnished truth about animal torturing industries. But the Senate says "eco-terrorism" and you fold. Re-hire Gary immediately or I will use all the influence I have to get every person I know off of PETA's membership list. My friends were arrested at a recent highly successful 5 day long Ringling protest where we convinced hundreds of people never to attend an animal circus again. We even had a group of youths tear up t heir tickets. Your literature was an instrumental part of our protest. But you can keep your filthy literature. It is not worth the paper it is printed on if you cut loose your best voice for animals just because of some political heat. You are becoming part of the problem not the solution. Re-hire Gary or you can forget about Fresno California as PETA territory.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:53 PM

I just heard that PETA decided to discontinue its sponsorship for Gary Yourofsky's lecture tours of colleges on veganism. Frankly, I think this is a big mistake. Gary's role in creating awareness about the practices of animal husbandry in this country, his questioning of the ethical justification of killing and/or using animals in general, and his moral challenge to countless students to discontinue their implicit support for these practices is essential. His impact is without comparison. I became a member of PETA after Gary started lecturing in the philosophy classes I teach at New Jersey City University four years ago. After hearing about Gary's dismissal I have decided to cancel my membership. I must confess I never liked your use of "celebrities." But I find it outright incredible that in a crisis situation like this PETA should be unable to approach one of them for the money it would take to sponsor Gary for at least one more year. I wished you would reconsider your decision.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:55 PM
To: JayK@peta.org

I am not aware of Mr. Yourofsky's "anger" problem. If by anger you mean frustration towards a compromised system such as the one your organization is a part of, well, then I can assure you I need the same treatment. In any case, the point is that Mr. Yourofsky's hard work turned me into a vegan, not PETA's. Mr. Yourofksy's contributions towards achieving the goals that PETA claims it fights for, have been truly magnanimous. PETA's actions simply don't make sense. Perhaps there's something I'm missing, and if so please enlighten me. I have to say though, that to me, it is just another case of capitalistic fever once again keeping down the people who really matter. And in that sense, you're no better than the disgusting meat industries you say you battle. In closing, I would just like to say that I am truly saddened that PETA has decided to treat Mr. Yourofsky this way, and I am even more saddened to see an organization I once held in high esteem, so immediately be turned into some faceless corporation. It just goes to show that no one can escape it, and the people who can, aren't the ones in high places.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 4:34 AM
To: IngridN@peta.org; JayK@peta.org

Whatever your reasons for doing so, I fear that in cutting Gary Yourofsky loose from your funding program overall, you may have silenced the greatest voice for animals since Tom Regan and Peter Singer, and maybe even Henry S. Salt. When I co-sponsored Gary's five presentations at Grossmont College near San Diego, Calif., we drew a lot of heat from at least two professors—not necessarily because I freely and proudly announced that Gary had been incarcerated for breaking into a mink farm and releasing over 1,500 mink—but rather because the posters that we mounted on campus billboards had the PETA logo on them, which to these professors represented sponsorship by a "radical," "eco-terrorist" organization. While I no longer work at this college for personal reasons, I remain eternally grateful that our college administrators did not flinch from their commitment to bring quality speakers like Gary onto our campus to present ideas that the mainstream will no doubt consider "unpopular."

In the meantime, I watched in awe as Gary spent more than an hour fairly dressing down the eating habits of students in the classroom without attacking them personally, only to have these same students clamor to the front of the room afterward to shake Gary's hand, embrace him, and purchase his videos. One student in San Diego even approached Gary tearfully, tore up his hunting license, and placed the pieces directly in Gary's hand. Got anyone else on the staff of PETA who can do that? I doubt it.

Perhaps you don't agree with every last one of Gary's points-of-view. Hell, I don't agree with all of Gary's beliefs—we've had our share of friendly tousles about them over the years. But that doesn't diminish in the least my continuing admiration and respect for him, and it does nothing to change the hard fact that he has single-handedly convinced many of my students to either go vegan, or vegetarian, or stop attending circuses and marine parks, or reduce their consumption of meat. The irony is that Gary is probably the hardest-working person on your staff, and even if he were not, he would undoubtedly be the most efficient, in terms of results gained per outlay of money.

I would like to see PETA dispense with just one ineffectual billboard campaign, dispense with just one silly, half-dressed woman in an animal costume and a cage, and find ways to redirect their funding toward efforts like Gary's. That's because only serious public education and outreach programs encouraging people to boycott the industries that slaughter and persecute animals will be the agents that cause these industries to wither away, and eventually die. For you know as well as I that no law will ever be passed, let alone enforced, as long as there is money to be made from abusing animals, and the current corpocratic form of government is in place. We must take our fight directly to the people who unwittingly support this corpocracy. Right now you have no more effective agent for doing so than Gary Yourofsky, whom you've just cut loose. In view of all of the above, I hope that you will seriously reconsider your decision, have Gary join you at the table, sort out your various differences and disagreements calmly, and get Gary back on the road in time for commencement of the spring semester in January.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:17 AM
To: IngridN@peta.org

My husband and I have been supporters of PETA for many years. I recently attended the PETA gala in Los Angeles and brought a number of friends with me. I can no longer support PETA if PETA chooses not to support Gary Yourofsky and his lecture series. Just yesterday I met this man for the first time when he spoke to 172 students at the Ohio State University. You could have heard a pin drop in his lecture. There were many people gathered around him after his talk for at least 45 minutes, wanting to talk to him personally. He was animal activism ... in your face ... up close and personal ... not just a video ... not just a book for a pamphlet ... but someone that these kids could actually touch and interact with. I understand that these are very difficult times for PETA financially but this is one area where I don't think there should be a cut. Having been in the movement since 1972 when I first became a vegetarian and subsequently a vegan in the last few years and always fighting for A.R. I don't think I have ever heard a speaker as moving as this man, Gary Yourofsky.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:37 AM

I am sorry to hear of this and can certainly sense your justified anger. You are without a doubt the best animal rights speaker I have ever seen and I hope that one day, somehow you will find a way to do this again. If you decide you want to talk to the media (me) about your experiences with the animal rights establishment send me an e-mail. I'd be happy to do a story. In the meantime, stay tough and know your supporters think of you.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:49 PM
To: IngridN@peta.org

I teach ethics and philosophy at the University of Akron, and I am writing to ask you to reconsider your decision to fire Gary Yourofsky, who has spoken in my classes for the past 3 semesters. I am a former supporter of your organization and I have recently reconsidered renewing my annual membership. However, I will not do so if your decision to fire Gary is final. I am shocked at the realization I have come to of late, which is that PETA has become another corporate giant, whose primary concern is not doing good, but looking good. However, no matter how many billboards with scantily-clad women you erect in large metropolitan areas, it is doubtful that the blinded (as Gary calls them) meat-eaters will reconsider their support of one of the largest and cruelest industries in the history of the world. Yes, I'll admit that young, impressionable women might admire stars like Pamela Anderson, but will that be enough to persuade them to begin to care about the rampant cruelty that haunts the world as we know it? It is doubtful, at best. As far as I can tell, there is but one hope for the future of our planet and our souls, and that is communication. Real live, honest and informative discussions are, as far as I can determine, the only effective way to change the minds of those, whose habits of consumption are the fuel for the factories of slaughter that operate as a means to one end, which is the satisfaction of the hungry carnivore with money in hand. So, dropping Gary from the PETA crusade will be, as far as most of us animal rights supporters are concerned, an extraordinary act of injustice. After all, when all is said and done, rescuing a few stray chickens from a large slaughterhouse might be good for a few lucky birds, but convincing the carnivores to stop their cruel consumption is what is best for ALL the birds, fish, and animals. I implore you to reconsider your decision and to try to work with Gary to find a way to keep him out there campaigning for the end of animal cruelty.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:52 AM

Hey Gary, I am totally outraged at what happened. PETA has lost all of my support over this. I cannot believe what is happening. I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that if you ever need a place to crash, or anything at all, my door is always open. Please don't hesitate to let me know if there is anything at all that I can do for you. :) Thanks for everything you have done. You have changed so many lives. It really is something to be proud of.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:49 PM

I'm sorry to hear the news and I hope that your fortune takes a turn for the better. You've done a great job with your lectures and it is a shame that the multi-million dollar animal welfare groups cannot put their wallets together and fund the tour. Keep your head up, bro - you're one in a million.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:34 AM

NOTE FROM ME: This is from an OSU Animal Ag Prof. who is retiring after this semester after 25 some-odd years on the job. Do you see the irony here?

I am delighted to hear one of the patrons present last Tuesday saw value in keeping you on the road. Good luck in your future endeavors. I will miss hosting you at OSU.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 1:23 PM

We'll miss you, and continue to hope for your return. You've accomplished much and you are respected and loved by those you've taught.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:47 PM
To: IngridN@peta.org

Gary Yourofsky has provided a valuable teaching experience to hundreds of Fresno State students over the past 4 years. We were a regular stop on his college lecture tour. Please reconsider your decision to stop funding his work. His tireless efforts to promote veganism are real contribution to PETA's mission.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:50 PM

This truly sucks. I just want to thank you for your lectures over these few semesters. You've had an impact on me personally, and I'm sure you've reached many of my students and former students. I've no doubt that you've probably made the kind of difference that PETA had originally intended before their slide into the corporate abyss, and they've clearly shown a lack of credibility in not recognizing where the bulk of their successful campaigns are located. You'll be missed in my classroom, but keep me posted if anything positive develops. Good luck in all endeavors.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 12:07 AM

Sending my best wishes your way. You have been and always will be amazing!!! You are the definition of integrity. I sincerely and strongly believe the future holds great things for both you and the animals. With much love and admiration!

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 10:44 PM
To: IngridN@peta.org

I wanted to sent a quick note ... about the disastrous and deadly decision to pull the funding for Gary Yourofsky's animal compassion lecture tour. Gary saved lives, literally literally thousands of lives, and reduced the suffering in this world, all on his own, and all with PETA's support. As part time faculty at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan and a full time social worker, I can relate to what it takes to get through to people and to have them see the truth and the facts. I found Gary's lectures to be informative, factual, and most of all, effective. Before hearing Gary's talk I was vegetarian, but quickly became vegan after the very first time he spoke in my courses. He has not only opened my eyes, but also opened the eyes of many of my students, and educated them in the most effective way I have ever seen in my 10 years of teaching. He is inspiring, exciting, and so very right. It is always amazing to me to see how hard it is for Gary and me to connect and get him in my classes, because he and Kate were so very busy lecturing around the country ... then again, that actually made me happy, since I knew he was making such a huge difference in so many lives in so many parts of the country, I couldn't be selfish. Animals the world over need Gary, and for those of us who have heard him speak know this is true. I was excited to join PETA after I first heard Gary speak, as I didn't realize how much PETA made a difference. Finally, money actually going directly to the cause! He is a great fundraiser, though he would never say that about himself, b/c I know many folks who have joined PETA just BECAUSE PETA supported Gary. Supporting Gary is brilliant, as he is hands down, the best way to end animal abuse, for all the reasons Hanna expresses in her e-mail, which is below, incidentally, in case you needed to read it again. I do not need to re-say what she has so beautifully put into words. I know Gary isn't going to stop his compassion and his love for what he believes is right, but in spite of appropriate funding, h is message will not be as effective. As such, if PETA isn't supporting the most effective means they have to end the atrocities that happen to animals there is no reason to support PETA. It matters to me where my financial support doesn't go, and if it isn't going to Gary, it isn't coming to you. Yet again, Gary has managed to take the blinders off! I do hope you consider some budget cuts other than Gary's, and give him a decent living CONSIDERING all the good he is doing for the animals. We need to do something for him, we really do. I know he will always say it isn't about him, but really, it is ALL about him and his life's work. All we are asking for is a little compassion for the animals, for ONE person at the least, to speak out for the masses.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:52 PM
To: garytofu@earthlink.net; info@peta.org

I wanted to express my dismay at PETA's discontinuation of its support for Gary Yourofsky's animal rights lecture tours. Gary performs a vital function for those seeking to raise awareness about environmental injustice. In my Environmental Politics class on September 22, 2005, Gary gave one of the best presentations I've ever seen on any contemporary issue since I started teaching at the college level. He speaks well about issues that I am not well-informed enough to discuss with any credibility. Until that lecture, I as well as many of my students, had no idea where our food actually comes from. If people knew anything about factory farms, there would be a mass movement to shut them all down. By silencing Gary Yourofsky, you are helping big agribusiness put family farmers out of business, to say nothing about justifying the horrid, inhumane conditions that characterize farm animal existence. Does PETA stand for animal rights? Or do you stand with Cargill and Tyson? I realize that a good bit of this dispute is probably the result of strong personalities. But surely there is common ground, and a compromise solution could be negotiated if egos were put aside. Such arguments are often the case among radicals with strongly held opinions. Please put these personal differences aside and come to an agreement. No one can do what Gary does with as much effect. Your support of that effort is essential, since we at the universities cannot afford (concerning both the cost and the political price) to bankroll the tours, as much as we might want to.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:47 PM
To: Ingrid Newkirk; Jay Kelly

I am so sorry to hear about the cancellation of Gary's tour. I really do feel that this campaign is highly effective in spreading the animal rights message. I have seen Gary's lecture many times and the response that he gets is amazing. It is so much more effective than billboards, etc. I really wish you would reconsider canceling.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:35 PM

I'm so sorry to hear about this. I will send them a message. Many, many students have told me how much your talk has changed their lives. Whatever happens, I want to thank you for all the effort you have put in to coming to my classes and opening people's eyes. Very best of luck with whatever comes next!

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:58 AM
To: IngridN@peta.org

I was very surprised and greatly disappointed to learn that PETA has decided to stop funding Gary Yourofsky's educational lecture tours. Gary has spoken to students in my Environmental Science course at Oakland Community College twice now, and on both occasions his presentations were excellent. As I looked out over the class while he spoke, I could see how interested and attentive the students were, even after an hour or so. Gary was delivering a message directly to their hearts and minds in a way that no poster or pamphlet could. He delivered a message to me as well and started me thinking more seriously about the effects of my own choices on the welfare of animals and the larger ecosystem. I had planned to have him return again in the future. Unfortunately, your decision will likely make this impossible. If you were to survey the thousands of students and their teachers to whom Gary has spoken, I know that they would make the same request of you that I am making now: Please reconsider your decision to cut off funding for Gary Yourofsky's lectures.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 4:05 PM
To: IngridN@Peta.org

I am writing to your organization in hoping to persuade you to fund Gary's national lecture tour. Stopping Gary's lecture would be very detrimental to your organization, for Gary delivers a very informational and emotional lecture. His enthusiasm has every individual in the class paying attention to every word he says. He has helped others as well as myself "Take off the blinders" (as Gary puts it) about animal suffering. I had no idea about the torture and the living conditions of live stock animals till Gary spoke to my class. Gary has helped me realize what we as humans are doing to animals is wrong. Having him explain this in person helps one understand better than any web site or any flyer. I believe if you choose to stop funding Gary Yourofsky you would not only lose a great teacher, but a man dedicated to the cause of animal rights whose words greatly inspire others.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 9:35 PM
To: IngridN@peta.org

My name is Brandon DeBerry, I am a student at the University of Akron in Akron, Ohio. I am writing in regards to a lecture I attended in which Gary Yourofsky spoke about animal rights, animal cruelty, and veganism. I found this lecture to be one of the most informative, motivational, and inspirational lectures I have ever heard. Prior to this speech I felt that I was very informed about the cruelties that take place in the food industry, however, Gary opened my eyes to the true reality that is the food industry in America. Through Gary's speech I have gained a enormous amount of respect for animal activist and the rights of animals. You should seriously re-consider financing Gary's lectures, he has opened many eyes to the cruelties that take place every second in America. Thank you so much for your time and efforts in animal rights.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:24 PM
To: IngridN@Peta.org

Gary Yourofsky has recently made a presentation at the University of Akron regarding animal rights that I have attended. His lecture was both moving and enlightening and I was disturbed to hear that PETA is going to stop funding for his national tour. I have eaten meat all of my life and after hearing Gary speak, it made me reconsider what I have been doing all of my life. He also made a significant impact on many members of the audience, some of which who have stopped eating meat and dairy products ever since his lecture. Nevertheless, even if he did not get a single person in that room to change their lifestyle, he still made us think about the rights of animals in a new perspective. Everyone deserves to know the facts before they can make a decision for themselves and that is exactly what Gary allows for. He is a very influential speaker and did not lose my attention for one moment. The visual aid he used (the dvd) was evidence of how terrible slaughterhouses are and it really made me think if my chicken sandwich or glass of milk was worth the torture that the animals had to go through. Also, he approached the idea of veganism with the conviction that it was a more healthy lifestyle and that made his lecture all the more persuasive. f you keep funding him, I am sure he will reach many more people and open their eyes to the cruelty around the world.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:49 AM
To: IngridN@peta.org

I am writing this letter to you to ask for one favor. I am not asking for my sake, nor for the sake of any other person, but for the sake of animals everywhere. I am asking you to please reconsider your decision to cease funding of Gary Yourofsky's lecture tour. Recently, Mr. Yourofsky visited my ethics class at the University of Akron to lecture and answer questions during two lecture periods. Gary's lecture was very informative, enthusiastic and to the point. He was a fantastic speaker that held everyone's attention, a very difficult task for the class in which I am in. Most importantly, Gary made the majority of the class think. That is the most important aspect, is it not? To share PETA's fight with the world, especially those young enough to change early and make a difference for a long part of their lives. Gary's speech did carry with it a great deal of shock value for those who have not previously heard talks on the topic of animal rights and animal cruelty. However, his words brought not only shock but logical thought and a considerable amount of consideration to the class. This consideration of stopping to eat meat and stopping to buy animal products did not just stop at consideration. Because of Gary's speech, some class members have started with self-prescribing Vegan days. We may not have immediately become Vegans, but every process must have its start. I for one, am not a Vegan, and am a meat-eater. I have heard numerous speeches from representatives of PETA or from other Vegans. I have done nothing with the knowledge I have gained besides lock it away in my brain. However, Gary's speech was different. You have with your organization one of the best motivational speakers to which I have ever listened. I myself have made one day a week a Vegan day. I did not do so simply because Gary told me, nor did I do so because I felt pressured. I have done so because of the logical arguments and critical points Mr. Yourofsky presented. I had no idea of the extent of how becoming a Vegan planet could change lives , affect economies, and bring food to those less fortunate, while at the same time save animals from the cruel lives and deaths they have been unwillingly born into. Gary is making a difference by nationally touring middle schools, high schools, and colleges. He is bringing a different view to thousands of young people, a view many have never considered. Gary forces young people to think and not act out of pressure, but out of duty to what is right. True, Gary is quite radical. He has an ALF tattoo on his arm. He has been arrested on multiple occasions. He as even served jail time. He has been quoted on occasions to stand behind arson of animal centers. His methods and speeches may even be considered extreme by some. Yet, this is not the "evil" Gary that spoke to us. His negatives present him with the background to speak on the topic. His extreme feelings provide the energy needed to get the idea across to the audience. I am writing this letter to ask you to continue Mr. Yourofsky's funding for all of these reasons. Simply put, his speeches make a difference. Please allow Gary to continue his national lecture tour. Allow him to teach millions about Veganism and about animal rights.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:25 PM
To: ingridn@peta.org

This email concerns Gary Yourofsky and the funding that will cease to exist for his tour of speeches he makes. Gary came and spoke to my ethics class a few weeks ago. Gary not only helped me completely understand the cruelty that animals go through in slaughterhouses, why a vegan diet is a healthy diet and a humane way to treat animals, but he helped me come to the conclusion that I will try my hardest, in time, to try to follow a vegan diet. I also had a video that Gary gave out after he told the class that he would no longer be funded. I took the video home to my family, showed them, and now my family will no longer eat meat as much as they used to. It's hard to say if they will become vegan, but they will cut their meat intake increasingly. Speeches like Gary's are crucial to getting the message out to people. Please try to reconsider your decision to stop funding Gary's lectures.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:21 PM
To: ingridn@peta.org

I recently sat in a lecture of Gary Yourofsky's and was intrigued by the amount of information he was able to offer us students in a fifty minute lecture period. He spoke at the University of Akron in Professor Maria Hollendonner's class a few Mondays ago. Although he had radical opinions on the subject of veganism, and touched briefly upon the actions he had taken for the animal rights movement, he supported all of his "radical claims" and "obscene actions" with very concrete statistics and data. He was able to convey his ideas to the class of about 40 in simple, understandable language. In fact, due to his caring efforts and great research and presentation, I made the choice to become a vegetarian. Coming from a family of hunters and farmers, this was a huge step, and I hope to slowly step into veganism as well down the road. I had Thanksgiving dinner this year without consuming turkey, gravy, stuffing, etc. because they all contained meat products. I am very serious and have adopted this as my new, improved lifestyle. If Gary had half of the impact on others as he had on me, he is doing a great service to protect animal rights. In conclusion, I hope that you will reconsider your annual financial assistance for funding Gary Yourofsky's national lecture tour. Thank you for your time and consideration in this serious matter.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:24 PM
To: ingridn@peta.org

My name is Amy Kousagan and I am currently a full-time college student at the University of Akron in Akron, Ohio. I am writing to ask your organization to please reconsider your decision to stop funding Gary Yourofsky's national lecture tour. I truly think you are making a huge mistake by stopping his funding. Gary recently visited our university and spoke to my ethics class. I believe many American's are completely clueless and unaware of the way animals are treated. Spending money for billboards and commercials, where people can simply turn away, isn't enough to persuade Americans. Gary's lectures will. I had no idea that animals were treated the way they were until I saw Gary's video and heard his speech. He completely opened me up to a new way of living life. By going out and explaining to people all over the country, more and more people will become supportive of PETA and turn away from harming animals. I also believe that college campuses are the most important place to hold these lectures because the younger generation will be more open to these ideas and ways of living. I really hope that you would please consider funding Gary. Gary stands for everything PETA is about and you would be losing a great aspect to your organization. Thank you for your time.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:36 PM
To: ingridn@peta.org

I am writing to you in hopes that you will reconsider your decision to stop funding Gary Yourofsky's lectures. Gary spoke in my ethics class at the University of Akron. I never knew how animals were really tortured in the slaughterhouses. I was under the naive impression that we used more humane tactics. I thought that there were laws in place to protect animals. I also never knew that being a vegan can be a healthy lifestyle. I was always taught that meat was an important food group and a necessity to be healthy. In conclusion, Gary's lecture was a real eye opener for me. It was very informative. Without these lectures the misconceptions will continue to be taught and people will never learn the truth.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:14 PM
To: 'IngridN@Peta.org'

I am writing to ask you to reinstate the funding of Gary Yourofsky. Recently Gary visited our University and gave a speech on ethical veganism, because of his presentation I have reconsidered the amount of meat that I consume and began to take steps to eliminate more animal products form my diet. I have also begun to research ways that I could become involved in changing industry standards regarding the treatment of animals. I believe that the information the Gary provides to students is valuable in that it exposes them to facts they may have not been aware of. If one out of every one-hundred that hears his speech converts to veganism and 20 more change their dietary habits then I would say that his work is effective. Education of the populace is the key to change and Gary's work educating college students (the future leaders of our society) brings us one step closer to truly transforming the way people view and value animal life. I support his work and hope that you will consider doing so as well.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:11 PM
To: IngridN@Peta.org

Dear PETA, I was just writing to you because Gary Yourofsky recently came to my school (University of Akron). And provided an extremely convincing argument supporting ethical veganism. I was disappointed, to say the least, to hear that PETA would no longer help fund Gary's lecture tour. He was very effective in getting his point across by explaining why it is healthier to not consume animal products, and showed horrific footage of what really goes on in slaughterhouses that left everyone in disgust. After hearing the points he made, I decided that I would no longer eat meat, which is a decision I plan to carry out for the rest of my life. After class, I grabbed a DVD version of his lecture and showed it to my mother, who decided to become a vegetarian as well after hearing what Gary had to say. I understand the main concern of your organization is to reduce animal suffering, and I think it would be a tremendous mistake to stop funding Gary's tour, because he opened my eyes to really goes on in the world and changed my life, and I am sure I am not the only one. I sincerely hope that you rethink your decision to stop funding Gary's tour.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:13 AM
To: IngridN@Peta.org

I am a student at the University of Akron, and just had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Gary Yourofsky's speech on ethical veganism. I was also made aware that PETA has decided to stop funding Gary's lecture tour. I am writing to you in hopes that you will please reconsider this decision. I have been fairly neutral on the issue of animal rights, but after hearing Gary's compelling scientific proof that humans were not meant to consume animals, I cannot possibly justify eating or supporting the killing of animals for food. I have never been touched by a speaker like I was by Gary. I know now that all it takes to change people's minds is to educate them. One person (Gary) was able to touch the 25-30 people in that room. Of those people, the ones who truly took to heart Gary's speech will no doubt, like me, continue the education and share with their friends and family what they have learned. I feel that as powerful a speaker as Gary is, it would be a shame to end his possibility to speak to young, open-minded people about the options they have in living the rest of their lives as ethical, and peaceful people.

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:43 PM
To: IngridN@Peta.org

Gary's lecture tour really caught me off guard and made a huge difference in my life. My eyes were finally opened to the animal suffering that goes on. He helped me to figure out what was important in my life, such as compassion for animals and saving other humans from world hunger. His lecture showed how being a vegan stops animal suffering, reduces