Sinikka on Towards Freedom

The Science of Compassion

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:03 -0800

Chapter One: Dissecting Conservation’s Biggest Myth

I care deeply about the survival of the earth. Even as I write these words, I know that this exquisite jewel of a planet is at unprecedented risk. The land, air and seas cry out as they have never done before; the seeds of destruction have been planted by humankind and they are germinating and growing at a monstrous rate. As many have foretold, we seem to be on the eve of destruction. We can speculate that it may take a miracle to turn such a resistant, self-mutilating society around, stopping the cycle of abuse and beginning the slow process of rehabilitation.

Yet I can’t help but believe that there is a solution to this downward spiral that has so far eluded the traditional scientific community. This solution entails shifting away from what is conventional and measurable in a clear-cut physical, quantitative sense. Perhaps the time has come for science to evolve to that new level, to seek an alternate paradigm. Such a perspective would enable humans to discover a basic and simple logic, a global key to survival.

This evolution involves a new science: compassion.

The conservation movement in particular has, with troubling consistency over the decades, focused on the importance of species for survival and has downplayed the role of the individual. But just as leaves, bark, branches and roots are crucial to the growth and survival of a tree, so does an individual unit contribute to the integrity of the whole. Interwoven in the fabric of successful co-existence is compassion, the tie that binds together individuals, families, and communities. The huge global response to natural disasters in Indonesia, Haiti, and Japan (to name a few countries devastated in recent years) is evidence of the fact that compassion can have world-wide reach.

Agencies involved in “science-based” conservation have long been regarded as the natural world’s Messiah, the whip that keeps species in control by supporting the demise of certain animals through hunting. In addition, these agencies have been inclined to prohibit the public from sheltering injured and orphaned wildlife, thereby shackling the compassion righton of individuals whose hearts are driven to do the right thing. Yet it should be noted that even dictionary definitions of “conservation” are in conflict. Further, it appears that the definition of the word has either evolved or dissolved over the ages—depending on what side of the fence one is on. Consider the meaning of the word “conservation” in 1828: “The act of preserving, guarding or protecting; preservation from loss, decay, injury, or violation; the keeping of a thing in a safe or entire state; as the conservation of bodies from perishing; the conservation of the peace of society; the conservation of privileges. (Source: (Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary)

Now let’s examine a few modern definitions of the word from the same webpage noted above. Definitions of “conservation” are grouped in categories, for instance, agriculture, environment, technology and so on. This one in particular (environment) is of interest: “A philosophy of natural resource management that ensures their availability in the future by not being too greedy in the present. Conservation practices, by preserving land for future use by humans (the technical definition of conservation) has the secondary benefit of providing habitat and thus survival for many plants and animals not commonly thought of as resources, such as songbirds and wildflowers. The intelligent use of natural resources.”

Please note the ample reliance on such phrases as “management”, “use by humans”, and “resources”. Preservation of habitat for songbirds and wildflowers is termed a “secondary benefit”. The following definition on the same list pertains to conservation in agriculture: “In farming, conservation entails matching cropping patterns and the productive potential and physical limitations of agricultural lands to ensure long-term sustainability of profitable production.” Again, we note the words “sustainability” (on the surface, an innocuous word, yet often used by conservationist word dressers in order to legitimize and elevate the status of their activities) and “profitable production”.

So what happened to the simple concepts of protection and preservation? The words “guarding or protecting” from the 1828 version of Webster’s Dictionary conjure up images of a mother lovingly defending her young, while the other more modern definitions point to human management of resources, not only to preserve the environment for future generations of humans, but also for the sake of profit.

With all this in mind, we are left to wonder how one word has become so completely distorted over the centuries. Could it be that certain humans, masters of manipulation, once twisted the meaning of the word “conservation” to suit themselves, and the passage of time allowed the shift to remain, even to be reproduced in the online version of Webster’s dictionary?

Then, from Wikipedia’s science page, emerges this gem: “Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science’s emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.” Since conservation principles are essentially considered to be science-based, it follows that we may have found an explanation for the shift in definition discussed above.

Let’s focus now on the area of “conservation” known as hunting. Truth be known, every Conservation Officer I’ve ever dealt with has proudly admitted to killing as a pastime—in the name of food procurement, of course. But wait. Some have also confessed to the killing of bears and less succulent-tasting wildlife, because those animals “were a danger to society”. Others approve of trapping as a legitimate way to “manage” certain species of fur-bearing animals. Many hide behind a word curtain of “sustainability”, “good management” and “environmental stewardship”. It appears that destruction of individual living beings has become acceptable and very much the norm from a conservationist standpoint.

I am reminded of a rural neighbourhood incident, where a local Conservation Officer was called to the scene of a wounded six-month-old deer fawn. Unfortunately, while the mother and her other fawn had safely cleared a wire fence and landed on the other side without mishap, one youngster had managed to get tangled in the wire, damaging a leg in the process. A large group of neighbours quickly gathered around the injured fawn and kept the CO at bay until a representative from the animal protection community arrived. A battle of wills ensued, with the CO insisting that the fawn should be shot, the animal protection volunteer stating that she would be willing to transport the deer to a wildlife veterinarian for assessment instead, and the group of neighbours demanding that the fawn should be allowed to live. In the face of such staunch support for the fawn, the CO hesitated. In those moments, a brawny man stepped forward to initiate the process of lifting the wounded deer into the back of his pickup. Outnumbered, the officer from Conservation could do nothing but watch. His pragmatic, science-based approach was no match for the groundswell of compassion from the concerned neighbours. The fawn was safely transported to a nearby clinic.

I would like to say that the youngster survived and recuperated, but that was not the case. In spite of excellent care, he died of toxic myopathy just two days later. This condition is also called “capture myopathy” and is stress- related. The clinic veterinarian suggested that older fawns (rather than newborns, who do not know yet to be afraid) are more prone to succumbing to this.

With such a sad outcome, one might argue that the CO had been right, as the fawn died anyway. The official may have stated that a bullet in the head would have been preferable to two days of suffering and fear. But a woman representing the group of concerned citizens who had lobbied for the life of the fawn had this to say: “That animal’s life was worth fighting for. It was just the right thing to do. You know, where there’s life, there’s always hope.”

Meanwhile, the neighbours learned that there is power in numbers, and with their staunch commitment, they were successfully able to exercise their compassion righton. The Conservation Officer attending the scene learned about the tremendous power of compassion, that it is a driving force, and that it does not easily back down when threatened with legislation, policies, or other rulings that characterize modern society. It does not succumb to bullying tactics.

Perhaps he learned that compassion is contagious, and the cumulative power of its sources should not be underestimated.

Next chapter: Why is Compassion a Science?

The Gift

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:37:02 -0800

Let us give a gift to the world,
a gift of joy and boundless peace.

Just for a moment,
let us see through the eyes
of those, so much weaker than us,
who suffer:

An infant prisoner, the veal calf,
crying in darkness for the mother
he has never known,
her milk collected for “higher” appetites.

The egg-layer huddling painfully
in cramped confinement, destined never
to know the joy of sheltering chicks
beneath her strong wings.

The suckling foal, force-weaned
and sold at auction
for his flesh - a number,
not a life.

Let us hear, just for a moment
the piercing screams of the doomed,
muffled by slaughterhouse walls
and hidden from human conscience.

It doesn’t have to be this way.
But by what means, we ask,
shall the agony cease, and
peace prevail in all the world?

Let us start
by lighting a candle for mercy
in our own lives, illuminating
a small piece of darkness.

Let us not turn away
from the cries of those who need us,
nor give in to tradition, industry, or false doctrines.
Fear not what is right.

Let us live peacefully
in all ways, choosing
compassion over indifference,
empathy over violence.

Then, let us reach into the darkness
to help light the candles of others … for all life.

Canadian Horse Defence Coalition

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:56 -0800

The Canadian Horse Defence Coalition was founded in 2004 for the sole purpose of ending the horrific practice of horse slaughter in Canada and the export of live horses for the same purpose.

As a committed vegan, I am opposed to the exploitation of any living being, so it was after a great deal of thought that I decided to develop a campaign to specifically help the horse. There were several reasons for my decision. One, I had been involved in the rescue of PMU (Pregnant Mare Urine) foals since 1997 and had horses of my own. These animals had touched my heart simply because I spent a lot of time observing their ways and trying to learn their language. They had impressed me as being intelligent, intuitive, and loyal. I could tell many stories about how wonderful they are, but one easily illustrates the depth and sensitivity of horses:

On a cold, slippery winter day, I slid down to the paddock to give my horses, Montana and Misty, their feeding of hay. Right after I had thrown the flakes of hay into the feeder, I slipped and fell on my back. Misty, who had grabbed a mouthful of hay as it was dropped, stopped in mid-chew and left the feeder to lean over the fence toward me. When I eased myself to my feet, she carefully inspected my back, up and down. It was clear that she was concerned about the accident and wanted to make sure that I was not badly injured. Of course, horses themselves, being “prey” or “flight” animals, are extremely concerned about falling, thereby making themselves vulnerable to predators. She had extended that concern to me. I then realized that I was part of the herd.

I also felt that stopping the slaughter of horses (possibly humankind’s “third best friend” after the dog and the cat) seemed to be an easier battle than asking the country to stop eating meat altogether. Of course, there is nothing less cruel about the mass butchery of cows, pigs, sheep, and other sentient beings, I argued with myself. But horses are “flight” animals with long, mobile necks; they become agitated very easily, and are thus extemely difficult to kill humanely. For this reason, their suffering in the stun box, I reasoned, may be more prolonged than that of other species. But, in truth, they ALL suffer and are terrified, I countered. Slaughter is inherently wrong, no matter who the target. It is the ultimate act of betrayal toward another living being with whom we share the earth.

The horse won, at least for the time being, because I had to start somewhere.

First, I decided to gauge public opinion in Canada on the topic of horse slaughter. In May 2004, an Ipsos-Reid poll showed that 2/3 (64%) of Canadians are opposed to the slaughter of horses for human consumption. This was a healthy majority (even with very little public awareness work having been conducted in Canada up to that point), so I knew that a campaign could be launched with confidence. The next job at hand would to let the world know how Canadian citizens feel about horses being slaughtered for meat, so a media release was sent out and a website started, Canadian Horse Defence Coalition. The response was nothing short of amazing. E-mails and telephone calls began to pour in. Horse lovers from all over the country, even from the United States (where the battle to stop horse slaughter had already been raging for years) contacted CHDC to offer their help and support. The movement to stop horse slaughter seemed to develop a power of its own. It would be several years before the coalition would become a dissemination arm for undercover work conducted at Canadian equine slaughterhouses. In the meantime, we organized ourselves with a board of directors and several strong writers who cranked out articles and letters to government and to other organizations. Some excellent donors stepped forward with their support. We started to send out “alerts” in order to let supporters know how they could help. Through the assistance of an international society called WildAid, we were able to do a launch of our campaign to end horse slaughter in Canada: the spokesperson was actor Bo Derek, well-known for her advocacy work for horses and wildlife. By this time we had secured hundreds of supporters, and their numbers continue to grow.

I’m proud to be working with the amazing group of people who form the board of directors of CHDC. Although differences of opinion can occur, decisions are quickly made after democratic discussion, and no one is left feeling like they are “not heard”. There appear to be no ego issues within the group. These are mature, sensitive - yet logical - individuals who share the same goal. Over the years, we have developed pat answers to deal with those from the other side of the fence who attempt to undermine our work. For example, pro-slaughter people are forever trying to pummel us with their propaganda, somehow thinking perhaps that we will cave to their arguments. A favourite question is, “What will happen to all the unwanted horses if you succeed in stopping horse slaughter?” We respond with a long list of where the so-called unwanted horses can go, but the most important point is the fact that an end to slaughter will automatically result in a reduction of careless breeding practices since the slaughter option will have been removed. We usually don’t hear from those folks again, because they are often breeders who send their “culls” to slaughter.

When horse slaughter becomes a chapter in Canada’s history books, we will still be working. CHDC runs a program called “Horse Protection Initiatives”, which encourages the adoption of horses from qualified rescue centres (rather than from breeders), and assists with euthanasia costs for elderly, lame, sick and otherwise compromised horses who would benefit from a quiet, peaceful ending to life. We have talked about expanding this program to include assistance with gelding (castration) costs. There will be plenty to do when the gruesome, cruel practice of horse slaughter grinds to an end.

We have learned many things while running this campaign. These points seem to have worked for CHDC:

Pick your battle. There are many issues out there
pick one and vow to give it all you’ve got.
Remain focused on your goal. There will be many diversions
stay with it.
Create a website.
Gather your supporters by sending out alerts and involving media when you can.
When you ask for donations, show your supporters how the money will be spent and what has been done with it in the past. A good track record of hard-hitting campaign work is effective. The public will appreciate those efforts and will know that if they donate to you, they will get results. This works better than begging for money.
If your campaign involves lobbying the government, do it relentlessly. Write letters to the editor (and ask your supporters to) in order to create a good, strong grassroots presence. Arrange meetings with elected officials. Start a petition, but make it official
stick to the government’s rules if you want the petitions read in Parliament. Online petitions are great for public awareness.
Don’t give up. Remember what Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win”.

A Song for Bloody Geoff

Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:36:53 -0800

There once was a sealer named Bryce
Whose heart was as frigid as ice.
He clubbed ’em and snagged ’em
Then brutally dragged ’em;
Of mercy he didn’t think twice.

Now Bryce had some friends, it’s been told
Whose souls had long since been sold.
They pandered and lied,
Geoff Regan at side:
A leader with morals “on hold”.

Geoff’s greed was well-known in the land
(He refused to have the slaughter banned.)
He sent the Coast Guard
To where ice floes were marred
And more innocent deaths had been planned.

The sealers did torture and plunder;
Their savagery echoed like thunder.
The crimson blood flowed
Under death’s heavy load;
Of justice - one can only wonder.

And Regan of Fisheries fame
So willing to play the cruel game,
A killer at heart,
From his office took part
And shoulders the brunt of the blame.

They say wickedness does have a price.
Thus, the crimes that have happened on ice
Will always be there
For history to share
And the world will remember the vice.

Where Bryce and his buddies will go
Is a place of incredible woe.
Yet try to compare
What their leader will bear
Since his callousness funded the show.

Said the Devil, “I’ll trade my whole choir
For one white-collar thug, brute and liar.
How they pine for tradition;
Soon they’ll howl in perdition
With ol’ Geoff at the heart of my fire.”

Permission granted by author to forward this limerick widely and to share with Fisheries, the Canadian Prime Minister, the Queen of England, and anyone else on our planet who may be remotely interested. Anyone musically inclined could add a tune to it and sing it at demos, particularly in front of DFO offices.