“Cats’-meat men peddled their wares from door to door: these itinerate vendors sold skewers of horsemeat used for cat (and dog) food, customarily trundling their goods in a wheelbarrow and often depicted as trailed by a horde of extremely interested felines. In the nineteenth century, a cats’-meat man reported that there were twice as many cats in London as dogs.” From Kathryn Shevelow, For the Love of Animals: The Rise of the Animal Protection Movement. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2008: 69.

Pray Remember the Animals' Friend Society (1838)

Below the fold is a chronicle of these pieces of “art”–a bunch of goat skulls in a plastic bucket, the same skulls drying out in the sun, and, finally, a completed work of art. All shamelessly stolen–just as the lives of the goats were shamelessly stolen–from the above link.

(You know it’s a photograph of a true piece of art when a shitty digital filter is used, a fake border inserted, and the entire piece is mounted as a trophy–you’re a winner, dude!)

• The outcome of this investigation will only lead to further solidifying the dubious distinction between “responsible breeders” and “puppy mills.” (A distinction fully supported by, for instance, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.) The outcome is surely great news for organizations like the Canadian Kennel Club who will now be able to point to concrete legal evidence that what their members do is nothing like what puppy mill owners do; this might be literally true, but it has no bearing on the actual facts–”responsible breeders” and puppy mill operators alike are in the business of impregnating dogs so as to sell the offspring for a profit; a breeder no more “loves” their dogs than they “loved” the last can of Coke they drank. This distinction, of course, flies in the face of what we know about “pure breeding” and “pedigree breeding.” The RSPCA (of all organizations given its pedigree and its endorsement of nihilistic policies like “freedom food”) has been active on this front: pedigree (“pure,” “responsible”) breeding is every bit as offensive and inhumane as “irresponsible” puppy mill breeding.
• The outcome come of this investigation will not (as some have suggested in various comment sections on blogs and newspaper websites) have any effect whatsoever for animals on factory farms. There are two reasons for this. First, we already sociologically and legally see “pets” as not being animals. (On this jurisprudence, see the recent decision in Texas on intrinsic or sentimental value of pets.) The outcome of the Paws R Us decision only exacerbates the distinction between “farm animal” and “pet.” Second, the methods of factory farming are already protected under animal welfare legislation insofar as they conform to common industry practices (for instance, section 11.1(2) of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act). This is usually called “the common farming exemption.” That is, if a practice is routine, then by definition it is not cruel and, therefore, not subject to policing by animal welfare authorities.
• The outcome of this investigation will do nothing to affect the underlying cause of the existence of puppy mills, “responsible breeding,” or factory farms: so long as animals are considered to be commodities–that is, pieces of property–they will be exploited because the purpose of a commodity is to turn a profit for the producer. As long as people buy dogs and cats, you will have puppy mills–and “responsible breeders.”
• The outcome of this investigation will further solidify the role of non-govermental organizations and non-profits taking the onus for investigating allegations of animal abuse, preparing cases against animal abusers, and paying for the protection of abused animals. Meanwhile, governments will continue to suppress these very activities and the courts will confirm that the government has every right to suppress animal abuse investigations when they are conducted by non-state third parties. (For instance, the plethora of “ag-gag” laws introduced in American legislatures this past year or so, the continued repression of animal activists, and removing the charitable status of animal advocacy organizations.) Further, the fact that Humane Society International/Canada has agreed to assume the expenses of taking care of the animals since their seizure (600 dogs in need of severe medical attention–we are talking thousands of dollars a day) only creates the precedent that other systematic animal abusers will expect the same treatment in the future.
• There is, as far as I know without a lifetime ban on owning animals, no promise that the Lambombards will not move down the street and set up another business. (Indeed, some commenters on newspaper websites have suggested that the Lambombards currently possess 37 dogs.) And, as far as I know, the Lambombard’s will only “suffer” a $10,000 fine with no jail time or suggestion of probation. (It’s not even clear from news reports if they were charged criminally or provincially.)

The raid on Paws R Us is great news for the animals who were saved from these conditions, but it will do nothing to help other pet or food animals; in fact, the long-term consequences will work against the interests of these animals.

Courtesy of Fresh Home Magazine, I have further proof of this general thesis. The magazine–a decor magazine aimed a mid-twenties to mid-thirties sort of people with too much disposable income (or dreams of too much disposable income)–suggests “every room needs something living.” They then conveniently give us three suggestions: “flowers, goldfish, a pet.” This is interesting for at least two reasons.

First, living things suitable for use as decorations and adornments are divided into three possible groups: vegetation (“flowers”), animal (“goldfish”) and pets (“a pet”). The implication is quite a clear. Just as flowers and goldfish belong to different categories, so too do goldfish and pets. That is, pets are not animals like goldfish. (It isn’t clear why other non-animal quasi-humans aren’t given as an example of living decor. I mean, of course, children. I suspect the key difference between pets and children is that pets are to be posed near the furniture and art–but never on the furniture: see the Design Sponge blog–while children are to be used in the same ways as purses, strollers, and shoes; that is, something you show off outside the house in the right sort of neighbourhoods.)

Second, in this list, pets is the only category that gets an article, albeit the indefinite: “a pet.” A pet is endowed with a degree of subjectivity that is apparently not present in either flowers or goldfish. The sentence would have read as well (not that it reads well, of course) had it been written as “some flowers, a few goldfish, or a pet.” But, for whatever reason, the editors decided to strip flowers and goldfish of the honour of an article. I suspect there is some significance in the use of the indefinite article–a pet–pointing to the strangely indefinite status of pets relative to other living beings. We know they are alive; we believe they are alive in a way different than other living beings; but the exact manner of this life is indefinite. It is also noteworthy that pets is the only class that appears in the singular.

Jacques brings to the table years of senior management and executive experience in the animal health industry having served as the Director of meat hygiene for the Canadian Government, the Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, CEO and President of Novopharm, COO of KV Pharmaceutical (St. Louis), President of the National Income Protection Plan, and CEO of Semex Alliance in Guelph Ontario.

Yes, that’s right: the new CEO of the Toronto Humane Society is an industry shill having been in charge of making sure that meat is safe for humane consumption (“Director of Meat Hygiene“) and for ensuring that veterinary drugs administered during meat production don’t cause adverse effects when consumed by humans (“Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs“), the CEO and President of Novopharm (now called Teva Canada), COO of KV Pharmaceutical (manufacturer, primarily of estrogen based fertility drugs), President of the National Income Protection Program (owned by Oncidium Health Group, whose primary line of business is in keeping employees from making insurance claims), and CEO of the Semex Alliance, an especially horrifying organization which, in its own words, “distributes cattle genetics products, embryos and live cattle to dairy and beef industries.” How is anyone expected to have any confidence in the organization when its CEO has been personally involved in vivisection, genetic engineering, and supplying the beef and dairy industries with semen, embryos, and calves? I guess we can only be happy that he hasn’t personally been involved in pork or poultry production.

He remains (it would appear) a member of the Board of Directors of Nuvo Research. His bio for which brags “Most recently Dr. Messier was the Chief Executive Officer, The Semex Alliance, a partnership specializing in the development and marketing of high quality genetic technologies, products and services to benefit livestock producers around the world.” Nuvo Research, for what it is worth, “is dedicated to becoming a leader in the research and development of topically applied drugs that are delivered into and through the skin - initially focused on pain.” We all know what that means.

Presumably, what this all means is that Messier will be able to provide connections to giant corporations with deep pockets–something that the THS needs right now. In exchange for this money, the THS will give these vivisectionists and animal abusers a gloss of establishment respectability. Could you imagine a company donating money to the THS being investigated for animal cruelty? I can’t either.

Animal rights activists often complain that animal welfare organizations are in bed with exploiting industries, but it isn’t usually so blatantly obvious. But then, animal welfare in Canada has long-since lost its connection to the protection of working animals upon which it was founded in the nineteenth century, including the Toronto Humane Society, which has its origins in an effort to protect a working donkey. This is absolutely shameful.