Are some animals more equal than others?

The other day, I saw an article on the International Herald Tribune that talked about an EU law to ban the trade in dog and cat fur. I welcome any law that protects the right of animals to live. But it did seem strange that the law picked out just fur from dogs and cats. How about crocodile hides or calf leather (suede) or fox furs or seal skin or mink pelts? To quote the pigs' commandments in Orwell's Animal Farm, are "All animals ... equal, but some animals ... more equal than others"? Are we practicing species discrimination?

Fur trade has a grisly history in the conquest of America with thousands of native Americans killed in the internecine beaver wars, in one the early instances of capitalist greed. Regardless of the animal, the cruelty meted out to them in trapping and killing them for their skin is inhuman. Especially when much better man-made and natural alternatives exist. So why this perverse pleasure in wearing the skin of a dead animal in the name of fashion?

I looked up the related US Customs law on the trade in dog and cat fur and some of the statements in its congressional findings is interesting. The law is motivated by the concern with improper labeling of fur products that may encourage unregulated trade in dog/cat fur. Fine so far - the right of the people to know what they use and free market regulations. But the findings go on to state that the trade in dog/cat fur is "gruesome" and that their fur is "ethically and aesthetically abhorrent to United States citizens". This sense of selective righteousness galls me. Are the beastly killing of seals in Canada or the fox hunting in the UK not gruesome? Is the shacking of calves in minuscule cages to completely restrict their movement for a "delicacy" called veal not gruesome? Is feeding of their fellow animals to cattle, engendering mad cow disease, not barbaric? Are people in the US have such a limited sense of righteousness that they find dogs/cats dearer than other animals?

Are dogs and cats more "personal" because they are common pets? I don't buy that. I have grown up with dogs all my life. I've had a lab, 2 dobermans, and 4 dachshunds, and for several years, a dozen stray cats had called our place home. While I can definitely say I'm more attached to "my" pet than other animals, I would not say that I prefer killing a rabbit or a seal instead of a dog. Killing without a over-powering need is just not right!

I was a vegetarian by religion and evolved into a vegetarian by choice. It was driven by a belief in the philosophy of ahimsa, literally, to "not hurt" in sanskrit. What loosely translates to being vegetarian in the practiced Hindu religion has more stronger meanings philosophically. It even includes non-violence as practiced by mahatma Gandhi; ergo his choice of civil disobedience. There are several studies that show a vegetarian diet to be healthier than one that includes meat and the energy transfer in the food chain makes consuming plants the most efficient. These lead to my abhorrence for leather, silk, meat, eggs, among others. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, wrote an eye-opening piece in NYT titled, An Animal's Place.

But two things have troubled me. Isn't milk against the tenets of ahimsa as is having pets? In the former case, dont' I deny the calf what is rightfully its mother's milk? How well are the milch cows treated in the process of milk "production"? It seems hippocratical that I am derisive of those who cannot give up meat but I myself continue to drink "animal" milk because I have been drinking it all my life. Indeed, milk products are my primary source of protein, in the raw form, as yogurt, buttermilk, and cheese, but alternatives exist for at least one of them - soy milk. Is it not easy for me to be vegetarian since I grew up one but find it hard to be vegan since I grew up drinking milk? Is this not the case with an average, meat-eating American too when it comes to being vegetarian? As to pets, is it fair to breed animals just for the pleasure having them as pets, cooped up in out homes, away from their natural environments? There is the easy excuse that the pets are treated humanely, frequently as part of the family or better. But is that right? Do we give them a choice? Would this question even arise if they had not been bred for sale? Is it fair to effectively make a domesticated specie such as dogs or cattle extinct in the name of ahimsa, for if dogs were not pets and cattle not for their milk or meat, they would not exist in the wild. Who rolls the dice on this?

To end on a light note, I'm a big fan on southpark and this discussion takes me to the "Fun with Veal" episode. As always, Stone and Parker play both sides of the story by showing the horrors of veal and comparing vegetarians to you-know-what in their colorful style.