CAPE CHARLES MIRROR

Reflections on Cape Charles and the Eastern Shore

You are here: Home / Archives for Activism

NOAA: Mid-Fall Right Whale Incidents in the Greater Atlantic

by 1 Comment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 27, 2016 September Right Whale Incidents

North Atlantic right whales are the rarest of the large whales that occur in New England waters. Over the last few days, three separate right whale incidents occurred in our region. Two right whale mortalities were reported, and one right whale was reported entangled and alive.

Entangled Right Whale:

Image: nmfs.noaa.gov

Image: nmfs.noaa.gov

On Thursday, September 22, recreational boaters reported an entangled right whale to the US Coast Guard. The large whale towed hundreds of feet of line and buoys from its upper jaw. On Thursday, the Center for Coastal Studies launched a response, and removed more than 200 feet of line and buoys. The disentanglement team cut what they hope was a key line over the whale’s rostrum to help the whale shed the remaining gear. The whale has been identified as an 8-year-old female, #3823.

NOAA recovered the gear, and is analyzing it to determine its origin and, if fishing gear, whether it is compliant with large whale take reduction requirements. The whale is currently in the Gulf of Maine. Researchers are looking for the whale, weather permitting, and will reassess its condition when they are able to locate it. At that point, if the whale appears healthy and is shedding the gear, no further intervention may be required.
[Read more…]

Reva the Revenant: Our Chesapeake Bay Chicken Rescue

by Leave a Comment

Story by By Kathy O’Hara. Reprinted with permission by United Poultry Concerns.

My husband Tom and I have driven across the 23-mile-long Chesapeake Bay Tunnel Bridge in Virginia countless times. But Friday night June 3rd was a sight like no other.We were heading out of the second tunnel when we saw it – white, fluffy, and on the road. A few seconds passed before we realized what “it” was. I can still hear my husband, “Was that a chicken?”

It all happened so fast. I was in tears. Quick! Turn around. Make a U-turn at the first break in the road, drive back through the second tunnel, then the first. Another U-turn through tunnel, road, tunnel!

Reva on the CBBT

Reva on the CBBT

Our plan: If the chicken was still there and not hit by a car, we’d slow down, turn on the flashers. I’d be ready with a towel, throw open the door, and grab the bird!
There she was, standing just the same, head stretched down and forward toward the oncoming traffic. I grabbed her!

This was not her day to die, and with that thought in mind, I named her Reva, short for “Revenant,” after the movie – a person who has returned from the dead or a long absence.

Now – what to do with a chicken? Heading toward our boat at the marina on the Eastern Shore, we got a box from a liquor store and laid Reva in it with her towel.

I called a friend hoping she knew someone who wanted a chicken. A few minutes later she called back. Turned out an advocacy sanctuary for chickens called United Poultry Concerns was a mere 20 miles up the road on the Eastern Shore!

I left a phone message, and waiting for a call back, I made Reva a makeshift plastic water bowl. To my delight, she took several large gulps and even seemed to splash a bit on her beak. I later learned this was the first time Reva had ever had unlimited access to water.

[Read more…]

Paul Plante: On Alleged Progressivism In America in 2016

by 16 Comments

Special to the Cape Charles Mirror – Opinion by Paul Plante

As this presidential campaign season in America heats up, we hear the word “progressive” being bandied about quite a bit, especially today with Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton, while touting the “most progressive platform” in history, with some people treating the label “progressive” as a pejorative, while others look at it in a more positive light.

Given the seeming confusion over what the word actually means, if such can ever be said with any degree of specificity with respect to political labels, which “progressive” is, I would like to take a moment to delve the subject.

burke1

Photo Steven Criste

First off, “progressivism” is a philosophy.

It is a philosophy based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.

So, if you are for or against “progressivism,” either way, it is dependent on what the term “improve the human condition” actually means to you.

According to my research, and as is stated in WIKIPEDIA, in America, progressivism began as a social movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and grew into a political movement, in what was known as the Progressive Era.

So we are not talking about something new here, and in fact, we can see that as a political philosophy it is quite old, which gives some needed context to the statement of Bernie Sanders today that we are seeing the “most progressive platform” in history.

Of importance to this discussion, in our past political history, some American progressives rejected Social Darwinism, believing that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace.

As I see it, those are certainly not radical propositions, and in fact, they can be viewed as being quite rational.

Looked at another way, who in America today would advocate against providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace?

In our history, perhaps not surprisingly, progressives lived mainly in the cities, they were college educated, and they believed that government could be a tool for change, and American President Theodore Roosevelt of the US Progressive Party declared that he “always believed that wise progressivism and wise conservatism go hand in hand”.

On the other side of the political coin, American President Woodrow Wilson was a member of the American progressive movement within the Democratic Party.

So we see that the label “progressive” is not the exclusive property of either major political party in this country, nor could it be, since as said before, it is a philosophy, and philosophies are either accepted by an individual, or rejected, since philosophy is not something than can be imposed by a political party on free citizens in the United States of America.

Again, of importance to this discussion, progressive stances in America have evolved over time.

For example, just as it is again today, imperialism was a controversial issue within progressivism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, where some progressives supported American imperialism, while others opposed it, which shows that “progressivism” is hardly monolithic.

In that regard, in response to World War I, progressive American President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points established the concept of national self-determination and criticized imperialist competition and colonial injustices; views which were supported by anti-imperialists in areas of the world that were resisting imperial rule, such as Viet Nam, where we became mired down in a quagmire in the 1960s by trying to impose our will on the people of Viet Nam at the point of a gun, after the French imperialists were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

Moving forward in time, and bringing this into the context of the presidential campaigns on-going today, according to David Sirota, a newspaper columnist, radio host (AM760), and bestselling author, there is a fundamental difference between liberals and progressives when it comes to core economic issues.

In his view, traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society, while a “progressive” would be those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

As he puts it in more concrete terms relevant to today, a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), while a more “progressive” solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry’s profiteering and market manipulation tactics.

Further, a liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor while a progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America, much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money.

So is proposing free college tuition really a “progressive” idea?

Think about that for a moment, if you will, but as I see it, the answer would be no, it is not progressive at all, since giving out free college tuition, as fine an idea as that might seem to some, does not comport with the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.

To the contrary, since it is essentially just throwing more government money at something, without clearly defining what the throwing of government money will be “buying,” it is a liberal proposition, instead.

When we think of the magnitude of that liberal idea masquerading as a “progressive” idea, instead, we need to consider that at present, Americans owe nearly $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, which is spread out among about 43 million borrowers, and the average Class of 2016 graduate has $37,172 in student loan debt, up six percent from last year.

Cast that number against the Total Receipts expected by the U.S. federal government in 2016 of $2.99Trillion versus Total Outlays of $3.54Trillion, and we can see that “free” college tuition puts a large load on our federal budget, a load we American taxpayers will be forced to have to pay, since that cost will have to be borne by someone, and that someone is us.

So is this really, as Bernie Sanders said today, the “most progressive platform” in history, handing out free college tuition to anyone who wants it, even assuming that an American president had such power, which is not conceded, or is it just a liberal idea gone crazy that could well cripple our economy?

As always with all of these “good” ideas thrown at us on a daily basis as these politicians pander for our votes with all kinds of “pie-in-the-sky” promises such as a “chicken in every pot” and a “car in every garage” and “doubling exports,” no real details are given as to how it is to be done, just trust us, they say, we are the ones fighting for you, and we will make it happen.

But can they, really?

For the record, I am and have been since the 1980s a political independent, which means I am not for either major party in this contest.

What I am for is common sense, which in politics today is not very common at all, and rationality.

If someone says they are going to do something, like give out free college, I would like the details now, not next week, because in my experience, next week never comes, but the tax bill always does, and each year, our pile of debt grows deeper and deeper.

At the end of FY 2016 the gross US federal government debt is estimated to be $19.3 trillion.

This liberal idea of free college masquerading as a “progressive” idea will be adding a Trillion dollars a year to that figure.

Is that something you want to bequeath to your grandchildren?

In closing, please do “progressivism” a needed favor by not mistaking it for liberalism, instead.

The difference is important for our future as a nation, and that is something we should not forget, for if we do, it will be at our peril.

ANDY ZAHN: LIBERALS AND PROGESSIVES ARE JUST PLAIN HOODLUMS

by 16 Comments

Photo by Joel Yale

Photo by Joel Yale

Opinion by Andy Zahn

The difference between the two presumptive nominees and the direction the country will take is very clear. It’s not left vs. right, Democrat vs Republican, it’s Conservative vs Progressive.
Four Justices don’t believe in the separation of powers, that it’s fine for the President to amend laws or write new laws; run the country with a pen and a phone and pay no attention to the congress or the people.

Some believe the Constitution is a “living” document, that it can be construed to mean whatever you want it to mean, leaving the door open to all the activist judges, while in my opinion it is cast in stone. The document provides a way to amend, to change, add, delete parts that a large majority of the congress and of the 50 states agrees to, so on purpose to make it well thought out and not the agenda of one judge or even a large number of judges.
[Read more…]

Planning Commission approves language to deal with inadequate dog pens in Cape Charles

by 1 Comment

capeCharlesSeal_smDuring the winter, citizens provided the Cape Charles Planning Commission photographs of dogs that were being penned in less than humane circumstances. The photos showed dogs standing in cold water, in an area that appeared severely neglected. This has led the Commission to, for the past several months review the issue of dog enclosures ( “pens”) within the residential areas of Cape Charles.

Commissioners have also reviewed other ordinance language from the City of Suffolk. During the last meeting, the Planning Commission has been focused on how best to deal with the condition of domestic dogs left in outdoor pens, but also whether the town should pursue a more robust tethering ordinance (currently, the town is following the Northampton County ordinance, allowing the animal to be tethered for up to 12 hour periods of time). “I thought this is what this was all about,” said Commissioner Dan Burke. “Are we going to look at the tethering issue?”

The issue came to a head a few weeks ago when County Animal Control was alerted to the plight of the dogs that were being kept in what were clearly inhumane conditions. Animal Control was unable to do anything to help the dogs, due to the fact that the town did not have an enforceable ordinance on the books that dealt with dog pens. [Read more…]

Is it finally time for new kind of zoo?

by Leave a Comment

The events last week that led to the killing of the gorilla Harambe, begs the question of whether it is even ethical to keep animals in captivity; that is, should we do away with zoos? Certainly, there is the argument for the educational role of zoos, as well as the function they serve for conservation. The question is how well are they doing either? There is no doubt, some zoos, at least in America are better than others. The Cincinnati Zoo would certainly be considered a good zoo, one that attempted to create the best possible, most natural, most comfortable enclosure for Harambe – however, it may have been this high quality enclosure that led to the tragedy.

If we insist on keeping animals enclosed, than there has to be a better way to do it. And there is….
[Read more…]

A Different Kind of Letter

by 1 Comment

While the Cape Charles Mirror has received a healthy dose of abuse, and general ill-will while focusing on animal rights issues in Northampton, a reader did send over the transom another kind of letter, one that was sent to the animal rescue organization Guardians of Rescue. This is from a nine year old boy named Mathew who, for his birthday didn’t want anything for himself. Instead, he asked friends and family to donate money to a non-profit organization, Guardians of Rescue, whose mission it is to “to facilitate and foster programs and activities that further the unique benefits of interaction between people and animals.”

rescue_letter

How not to be a Vegan, part 2: Veganisms

by Leave a Comment

Special to the Cape Charles Mirror, this is part 2 of Robert C. Jones essay, How not to be a Vegan: Veganisms

Veganisms

Identity Veganism
In adopting vegan practice, a number of ethical vegans see veganism primarily as an individual lifestyle choice, an expression of their commitment to decreasing (and ultimately ending) the suffering and death that accompanies the commodification of sentient nonhuman beings.

Since many ethical vegans may believe (wrongly) that no animals are harmed in the production of their vegan consumer goods and foodstuffs, this ethical vegan “lifestyle” may sometimes be accompanied by a sense of ethical purity, a belief that once one adopts a vegan lifestyle, one then has “clean hands” and may carry on one’s consumerism with a clear conscience. Seen as a kind of litmus test of one’s commitment to social justice for animals, veganism may sometimes thought to be the “moral baseline” for those seeking to end the suffering and domination of other-than-human animals. Though there are debates among vegans about questions of purity and commitment, there appears to be a growing public perception of vegans, a kind of vegaphobia—that may be based in fact, prejudice, or more likely a combination of both—that vegans see themselves as better than and morally superior to nonvegans; that they may sometimes appear to be “preachy”; that they may exhibit a kind of self-righteous zealotry, acting as the “vegan police” who promulgate veganism as the universal, one-and-only way to fight systemic violence against animals. It was perhaps proponents of identity veganism that prompted philosopher Val Plumwood to describe vegans as: crusading [and]…aggressively ethnocentric, dismissing alternative and indigenous food practices and wisdom and demanding universal adherence to a western urban model of vegan practice in which human predation figures basically as a new version of original sin, going on to supplement this by a culturally familiar methodology of dispensing excuses and exemptions for those too frail to reach their exacting moral norms of carnivorous self.⁴
[Read more…]

How Not to be a Vegan: Essay by Robert C. Jones

by 6 Comments

Special to the Cape Charles Mirror. This is part one of a brilliant essay by Robert C. Jones, “How Not To Be Vegan”¹. See Robert’s bio at the end of the essay.

Introduction

I believe that those of us living in affluent consumer culture under late capitalism, where plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy are readily available, are morally obligated to adopt vegan practice, though I will make clear just what I mean by ‘vegan practice’. The source of this obligation is grounded in a very widely held belief, namely, that—all else being equal—unnecessary suffering and premature death are bad things, and that acting with relatively minimal cost to oneself, we should all aspire to decrease violence, objectification, domination, exploitation, and oppression whenever and wherever we can. However, when I say that we are obligated to adopt vegan practice, not just any type of “vegan practice” will do, so today I want to argue for a specific type of veganism I call revisionary political veganism.

A Puzzle About Ethical Veganism: The Causal Impotence Objection.

To argue that the raising and commodification of other-than-human animals for consumption is morally bad is one thing; to argue that individual consumers ought not purchase animal products is quite another. The reason being that there’s a bit of a puzzle in the relationship between consumer purchases of animal products and the suffering of so-called “farm” animals, a question that few vegans address.

The assumption behind ethical veganism—and most likely the central reason why a vast majority of vegans go vegan in the first place—are the beliefs that (a) individual consumer consumption of animal products increases the production of animal products, and (b) that by going vegan we decrease animal suffering. Going vegan, according to the argument, somehow contributes causally and directly to decreasing suffering both on small and large industrialized ranches.

I recently ate at the Southern California vegan fast-food chain Native Foods, where, after ordering at the counter, I was handed a placard with my order number on it. The placard read, “Crispy Battered Native Chicken Wings: One order saves three chickens!” What exactly does this mean? It can’t mean that there are three chickens somewhere who are waiting to be slaughtered on a factory farm whose lives are spared when I order the Crispy Battered Native Chicken Wings. [Read more…]

Is it Time for a Tethering Ordinance in Northampton

by 19 Comments

CORRECTION: This article implies that there is not a tethering ordinance in Northampton, but that is incorrect. The current ordinance allows for animals to be tethered no longer than 12 hours per day. The point is that, without a complete ban, or severe restrictions such as in Suffolk, VA., there is no way to effectively enforce it (who actually puts a timer on it?). Currently, the Sheriff’s department and animal control essentially have their hands tied.

Improper tethering, the use of something, such as a rope or chain, by which a dog is fastened so that it can range only within a set radius, can lead to death, mistreatment, excessive barking and vicious temperament in a dog. In 2013 the City Council of Suffolk passed an ordinance prohibiting all unattended tethering of dogs. The code, Section 10-42 is law: “Unattended tethering of dogs prohibited: It shall be unlawful to tether any unattended dog whether or not the dog has been provided adequate space.” Violation of the ordinance is a class 4 misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $250.00.

While Northampton County has many dogs living happy, healthy lives, some dogs are still chained or tethered in one place as a means of restraint, some tied up constantly or for many hours at a time. Should Northampton be more concerned with these dogs? Is it time to create an ordinance that will not only protect the animal, but also provide a way for county officials to incorporate tethering regulations into effective community dog management strategies?

tethered_dog

Photo Courtesy Ocala Post for Marion County, FLA which approved an ordinance which bans unattended tethering of dogs, with an exception for performing a 30-minute temporary task.

Dogs are social creatures who need to be part of a group, whether it is part of a human family or with other animals. Constant tethering can severely damage them physically, socially, and psychologically. Dogs chained to a tree or post will often be unhappy, anxious and often aggressive. According to Jim Mason, probably the most knowledgeable person on the Shore when it comes to the legal aspects of animal welfare, “Keeping a dog chained 24-7 is cruel, inhumane and backward. Caring communities like our neighbors in Suffolk and Hampton have stopped this with ordinances banning unattended tethering.”

The physical problems associated with being continuously tethered include necks that become raw and sore, and collars that can painfully grow into their skin. Unable to move freely, they are vulnerable to insect bites and other parasites.

Tethered dogs, while being socially neglected, may also suffer from irregular feedings, overturned water bowls, inadequate veterinary care and being exposed to extreme temperatures. During the summer in Northampton, they may not receive adequate water or protection from the sun. Dogs chained all day to a tree or post will also have to eat and sleep in an area contaminated with urine and feces. This severe neglect can lead to neurotic behavior, making the dog difficult to approach to give even minimal affection. They can be easily ignored by their owners.

We can’t fence in the entire county, so what are the alternatives? Some dogs do travel, and can wreak havoc along the way. If the dog must restrained, attaching a dog’s leash to a long line—such as a clothesline or a manufactured device known as a pulley run—and letting the animal have a larger area in which to move about is preferable to tethering the dog to a stationary object. This option may also carry many of the same risks associated with tethering, such as inadvertent hanging, attacks on or by other animals, lack of socialization and safety.

User submitted information from Natalie Rinker-Good, the current ordinance in Northampton
Northampton County, Virginia
May 10, 2004

No animal shall be tethered for more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period. Tethers must be at least 10 feet long.

§ 95.05 TETHERING OF ANIMALS.

(A) An animal owner in the county shall allow each animal to (i) easily stand, sit, lie, turn about and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal is tethered, “adequate space” means a tether that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age, size, and health of the animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or from gaining access to public thoroughfares, or from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at least ten feet in length or three times the length of the animal whichever is longer, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate space. Provided, however, that no animal shall be tethered for more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period.

(B) Animals involved in agricultural activities shall not be subject to this section.

(C) It shall be an unlawful act if any person violates any provision of this section and it shall constitute a Class 4 misdemeanor.

Aside from an ordinance, enforcement approach, our boots on the ground advocate organizations focused on reaching out to pet owners with information, resources and services on pet care can be effective. However, trying to rescue all tethered dogs may not be the best approach. Removing the dog adds to the already overwhelming number of dogs competing for room in the co-county shelter, which is already at capacity. Working with owners to improve the situations for their existing dogs is a valid best option, finding positive, constructive ways to empower owners to unchain their dogs themselves.

While tethering a dog may seem like an inherently local enforcement issue, at the national level, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a statement in the July 2, 1996, Federal Register against tethering: “Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane. A tether significantly restricts a dog’s movement. A tether can also become tangled around or hooked on the dog’s shelter structure or other objects, further restricting the dog’s movement and potentially causing injury.” The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) concluded in a study that the dogs most likely to attack are male, unneutered, and chained.

As a community, we must understand that tethering a dog is a cruel fate for what is by nature a highly social animal. Any city, county, or state that bans this practice is a safer, more humane community.

Editor’s Note: Charles Knitter submitted a valid point to the Cape Charles Mirror, that the Suffolk law is not a complete ban. Tethering is allowed by right at the state level and localities may not pass an outright ban…only tethering restrictions. If you read the Suffolk law closely you will see it is a restriction and not a complete ban. An outright ban can only happen at the state level and any local ban will likely be overturned in court when/if challenged.