CAIERE CHASE - The original e-zine and full service hunting dog registry for hunters in Trinidad & Tobago, that use dogs in the pursuit of game. email:- caierechase@gmail.com
Tuesday, 18 July 2017
Monday, 13 March 2017
Hunting in Trinidad and Tobago - a bond with the land and people.
A question conservationists always ask is
“why do you hunt” and normally follow up that injury with the insult “if you
wanted meat why not buy chicken!”
If only life was as black and white as that
we may have known the answer to have given them long ago.
Truth be told, hunting in Trinidad and
Tobago would vary from hunting in any other country and the factors that
motivate us would surely differ from what motivates them. For us, the impulse that
causes us to feel no hesitation in identifying as a hunter has its roots buried
deep in the history of this land.
About a decade ago a paper was published in
a Dutch university describing the complexities and understanding of bush
medicines in Trinidad and Tobago; its practice, its history, its effectiveness
and a complete scientific breakdown of the phyto chemicals found in each plant
used in this field which in almost all cases connected the plant to the remedy
that was sought.
Another thesis that was produced alongside
this was one detailing the plants used by hunters as concoctions for dogs or
for human use.
The authors of that document did extensive
research on the topic citing almost one hundred and forty other books, articles
and journals written in years past that showed positive confirmation of these
practices and its history not only in Trinidad and Tobago but in the wider
Caribbean and Amazonian region.
What was consistent throughout the thesis
was a link between our current practice of herbal and other bush medicinal
techniques and that of the tribal practices of existing and departed native
peoples of the region and wider hemisphere. What was concluded from their
observations is that much of our hunting rituals that incorporate bush medicine
was indeed handed down to us from our ancestral interactions with Amerindian
peoples.
In a world of corruption, capitalism,
consumerism and Bambi Brigadism, one has to ask “how have we managed to retain
such correct and relevant knowledge of herbal or bush medicines in spite of the
raging modernisation around us and the centuries gone since our ancestors would
have been actively interacting with the native peoples of this land?”
The answer to that is simple – that deep
bond to the land. It is therefore understandable that that bond would also run
deep in the veins of the Hunters – those who are the ones that have carried and
transmitted the oral knowledge from generation to generation maintaining the
connection between the Bush and ourselves!
The dilemma we face though is that the
conservationist HAVE NO CARE WHATSOEVER for our point of views, our life
styles, our contributions and our connections to the land. They, form groups
like El Sucko (El Soccoro) Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre and Papa Bois
Conservation and relentlessly troll and attack us, playing on the soft emotions
of this TV generation well-groomed by Disneyland to weep for the plight of
Bambi!
They have shown in the past that they would
rather tear hunting from the fabric of our society than to feel empathy to the
thousands of seniors whose only recreation is hunting and being in the bush.
They have shown their readiness to demolish the centuries of traditions built
by hunters and their families and the communities formed from such in order to
satiate their egos. It is a far gone understanding that the topics mentioned earlier
are of little or no concern to them.
But there is hope for us hunters!
We have always acknowledged conservation
and regulations as necessary for our traditions to continue. That is non
disputable. We also acknowledge that there are ignoramuses among us.
However, as human diseases and medical
complications begin to spawn rapidly as world population expands exponentially,
the need for new, cheap, effective and available medication is also increasing.
Research on traditional herbal medicines and its usage and applications have
begun to rise. As science once again turns its eyes to herbal cures, we the men
of the bush would be that link needed to such pathways: as the Amerindians
handed it down to our ancestors, we must now pass it along to the future. We
cannot simply be cut off from the land.
It is therefore incumbent upon us to step
up to the table. Maybe it is time we put our factions aside and in unison fight
the bombardment of the bambi brigade, protect our traditions and heritage, save
or forests, swamps, savannas, marshes and bush lands and protect our interests.
Let us the hunters unite and show our strength and improve ourselves and our
country. Let the next generation not ask “why do you hunt?” but rather lets
elevate our status that they would turn to us and say “THANK YOU FOR BEING A
HUNTER!”
Article by: Abby Karim
For: Caiere Chase
Enjoying the Last hunt ... one last time*
This article does not belong to Caiere Chase, nor does Caiere Chase any rights to it.
This article is only reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes only.
Wednesday, 30 November 2016
Man Today Yuh Dead.
“Man today yuh dead, man today yuh dead and
bury, man today yuh dead and bury, who tell you to come an trouble me. Man
today yuh dead, man today yuh dead and bury, man today yuh dead and bury, who
tell you to come trouble me.”
And with the reverberating drums carrying
the tales of the gayelle echoing in my mind, I sit here on this November day
reminiscent of how the culture of stick fight could have been erased from the
history of Trinidad and Tobago as the younger generations of revellers wooed by
the Brazilian style nakedness and the American style cash cows have within a
few years transformed the true art forms - changing, thwarting and corrupting
everything till the cultural jewels like minstrel, kaiso, extempo and stick
fight were almost phased out.
Probably what saved them from sure demise
was the very speed at which the bombardment on the true indigenous aspects of
this culture were being eroded. So quickly that generations of yesteryear were
still around to tell the younger generations that something very wrong was
happening. Imagine the father of Soca was alive and around to tell the first
born like Iwer that they were singing rubbish. That the grand master of costume
mas, still alive, told the nation he’s packing his bags and leaving: because
art was being destroyed by consumerism, capitalism, lewdness and alcoholism!
With such warnings and cries it seems that some were able to pull us back from the brink of this bit of our culture becoming extinct. It seems that the bois man did get to cut the devil of “modernisation” and save himself and the gayelle – even if only for a few generations again.
With such warnings and cries it seems that some were able to pull us back from the brink of this bit of our culture becoming extinct. It seems that the bois man did get to cut the devil of “modernisation” and save himself and the gayelle – even if only for a few generations again.
But I did not come to talk of carnival
culture. The parallels though to which I really wanted to mention were quite
similar: another aspect of our culture that is under attack – almost to say
“being poached by a skilled hunter.”
It may shock some when I say that this
aspect of culture and tradition to which I mention is Hunting.
I could pause here to take on the various
steups and insults and twist face that is expected of ignoramuses in this land
but I won’t pause for long. Just to cut their sourness short I would clearly
state that this is not a scientific piece on wildlife conservation. I think it
has already been long established by those who have cared to listen to the
voices in this the “hunting gayelle,” that we understand and have no problems
with and are in fact the biggest advocates and supporters of conservation –
period!
Like the stick fight, hunting is deep
rooted into the culture of Trinidad and Tobago. Make no mistake about it, it is
not a case as black and white as predator and prey.
Hunting has been entrenched into the fabric
of our culture to the extent that it is quite probable that every citizen of
this land has a family member or one close enough who is a hunter, or has a
love of wild meat etc. Of course this in no way means that everyone is partial
to hunting, but should at least be a serious point to consider by those who
wish to tear this part of our heritage from our culture.
It maybe that like the fate of the stick
man, the younger generations need to sit with the old folk and listen carefully
to the tales they would tell. Being hunters, many of these tales would clearly
need to begin with “once upon a time,” but
the general nature of them is common: they speak of the pre modern times, when
the people in these islands were deeply bound to the land – to seeking from the
forests and other natural sources their food and lively hood.
These tales of yesteryear speak of how
hunting defined men and shaped families. They give us insight into aspects of
our history that people take for granted. Of how the lives of families that
depended on the hunt and the forests were built – from which small communities
grew: communities that still exist today, unique in appearance and dialect and
flavour. Maybe those born and raised in the concrete jungles and high societies
of our islands may not be able to recognise it but do they not consider that
iconic communities like Matelot, Brasso Seco, Blanchicheuse, Caigul, Tabaquite,
Rio Clarro, Moruga, Guayaguare, Cedros, Erin, Fyzabad, Quinam, Tamana, Bieche,
Plum Mitan – and the list can go on – would not be the same had it not been for
hunting.
The tales of these old hunters can fill volumes,
paint a myriad of canvases and lecture to the elite and laymen.
These stories are also indicative of change
as well as give the guidelines of how we should chart our futures. If one would
sit with the hunting legends they would understand the passion and drive of the
new generations (not considering the generation of poachers who have sprung up
and roam our islands like cockroaches – looting, raping, pillaging everything
from iron to forests to human souls as they swarm).
The new generation of hunters have not
appeared from nowhere – these are the seed of the past, eager to continue the
traditions of their lineage. Of course, like Iwer should have listened to
Shorty, new generation hunters aren’t infallible and would need guidance and
rules and corrections from time to time, but nonetheless they are here awaiting
their turn to eventually become the old story tellers in the hunting gayelle!
Sadly there is a new poacher in town – an
odd fellow. His words meticulously devious and his deception and cunning
rivalling the best predator. Yet all he sees in his scope is the hunter!
Determined he is to remove us from the fabric of this society. No care or
concern has he for the roads were have come from and the paths we wish to
thread. All he does is plays on the emotions of ecological zealots pandering to
their wish make us extinct! The Poachers of Men they are, the Bambi Brigades!
Like the old stick man, we have to battle,
to save more than just a sport and lifestyle – to save a part of our culture
and a Legacy that many who have their roots buried deep in this soil desperately
wish to continue.
An Original Caiere Chase article.
By; Abby Karim.
Posted on Caiere Chase blog Wednesday 30 November 2016
Wednesday, 3 August 2016
Three new species identified amongst the Tegu lizard family
TUPINAMBIS CRYPTUS FROM TRINIDAD'S NORTHERN RANGE
Credit: John Murphy. Posted on: eurekalert.org
The golden tegu lizard, previously thought to be a single species, may actually comprise four distinct clades, including three new cryptic species, according to a study published August 3, 2016 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by John Murphy from the Field Museum of Natural History, USA and colleagues.
Tegus are among the largest Neotropical lizards, and while some species occur only in Brazil,Tupinambis teguixin inhabits much of northern South America. Commonly known as the golden tegu, T. teguixin is also sometimes called the "black and white" tegu and can be confused with the closely related species, Salvator merianae. To help resolve the systematics and nomenclature of this species, the authors examined museum samples of golden tegus for genetic and morphological differences across its geographical distribution. The authors noted subtle differences in leg scale morphology, as well as the shape of eye and lip areas, and identified substantial genetic divergence across the tegus large range.
The authors split the species currently recognized as T. teguixin into four morphologically distinct but geographically overlapping species, including three new cryptic species - T. cryptus, T. cuzcoensis, and T. zuliensis - that look similar to the human eye but are genetically distinct. The authors suggest that further research in northeastern South America might identify additional species within the T. teguixin group, which would aid in planning for tegu conservation.
"We demonstrate for the first time that two lineages of the Golden Tegu, Tupinambis teguixin, are living side by side at multiple locations in South America, and that T. teguixin is composed of at least four distinct species," said John Murphy. "This situation is known in many other species. What is surprising is that it has gone unrecognized in a species heavily exploited by humans for more than 200 years."
###
In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available paper: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158542
Citation: Murphy JC, Jowers MJ, Lehtinen RM, Charles SP, Colli GR, Peres AK Jr, et al. (2016) Cryptic, Sympatric Diversity in Tegu Lizards of the Tupinambis teguixin Group (Squamata, Sauria, Teiidae) and the Description of Three New Species. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0158542. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158542
Funding: George Washington University and the National Science Foundation funded part of this project (DBI-0905765, DEB-1441719) to R. Alex Pyron. But, no funding for this project was received by the other authors.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Caiere Chase does not own or claim any rights to this article. All rights to this article be long to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes.
Monday, 1 August 2016
Why We Can't Manage Deer Genetics
The power of selectively controlled breeding is incredible. With it, we transformed a wolf into a chihuahua over the course of 15,000 years – mere milliseconds in the echoing depths of geologic time. We transformed a seedy grass named maize into a crop that contributes to almost everything you eat. There are many other examples, but in every case the key word is “control.” No amount of selective killing of free-roaming wolves could ever produce a chihuahua, a Labrador retriever, or a border collie. But take the plant or animal and remove it from the wild, control who breeds who for a few generations, and change can be rapid.
Hunters of free-ranging whitetails cannot manage genetics through selective harvest and produce measurable genetic change. Period. Since we can’t control breeding in free-ranging deer, we can’t shape genetics. But put the deer in a pen and explicitly control who breeds who for several generations and, yes, results will be measurable, and they can be quite amazing. Because of this fact, many hunters assume the same can be done in the wild.
Hunters are hard-headed (I know because I’m a hunter). But I am bound and determined to be there when the last deer hunter gives up on the idea that a trigger-pull can change the gene pool. To help speed that day, here’s a list of sound reasons why we can’t manage genetics in free-ranging whitetails.

You can’t see genetics to start with. Many hunters think various forms of antlers represent genetic traits, but most of the abnormalities we see are injury-related, especially abnormalities that only appear on one side of the rack. As far as antler dimensions such as tine length and mass, the factors of age and nutrition are also on display. I’ve heard hunters claim a buck had “inferior genetics” when in fact it was just a yearling with average antlers for its age. I’ve seen hunters want to “cull” small-antlered bucks in populations where nutrition is low, deer density is high, and the sex ratio is out of balance. In these populations, some bucks are born late (because of the skewed sex ratio) and they survive on below-average nutrition for the rest of their lives, a recipe for underperformance. The last thing you want to do in a population like this is take more bucks out.

You can’t see genetics to start with. Many hunters think various forms of antlers represent genetic traits, but most of the abnormalities we see are injury-related, especially abnormalities that only appear on one side of the rack. As far as antler dimensions such as tine length and mass, the factors of age and nutrition are also on display. I’ve heard hunters claim a buck had “inferior genetics” when in fact it was just a yearling with average antlers for its age. I’ve seen hunters want to “cull” small-antlered bucks in populations where nutrition is low, deer density is high, and the sex ratio is out of balance. In these populations, some bucks are born late (because of the skewed sex ratio) and they survive on below-average nutrition for the rest of their lives, a recipe for underperformance. The last thing you want to do in a population like this is take more bucks out.
Since we can’t accurately identify genetic traits with a brief glance in the wild or by looking at a trail-camera photo, we can’t reliably select for them with a trigger-pull. But even if there was such a thing as “inferior genetics” and you could see it by just looking at a deer, you could not affect its prevalence in the population, not even by killing deer that are carriers. All of the following facts explain why.
Most yearling bucks disperse from their birth range, usually just before their second fall. They have been known to travel over 40 miles in this one-time dispersal movement (with an average of 1 to 5 miles), after which they almost always set up a permanent home range.
Think about the beauty of this behavior. Research suggests doe fawns tend to be home-bodies and live pretty much in the range where they were born. If buck fawns did this too, over time the same genetics would pile up in one area, leading to inbreeding. Yearling-buck dispersal is one mechanism that ensures the genetic river never becomes a stagnant pond but is constantly churning and flowing. Any effort by hunters to direct the flow at the property level will be easily overwhelmed by a constant stream of outside genetics.
Adult bucks leave their home range during the breeding season, making what are known to researchers as rut-related “excursions.” They have been known to travel several miles to a particular spot, spend a few hours, and return home. It would appear the point of the excursion is to rendezvous with an estrus doe. If that is true, then this is one more mechanism that contributes to genetic mixing across properties and even larger areas. Like yearling-buck dispersal, rut-related buck movements drill holes in a hunter’s imagined ability to control genetics.
Does carry genes too. It’s a fallacy that any deer or deer population has an “antler-gene problem” that we should worry about, but if it did, some does would carry it too, and a hunter would have no way of sorting them out and removing them. Interestingly, like bucks, does also make rut-related excursions, which further diminishes any hope of controlling genetics.
Young bucks breed. Most of the hunters who claim to be improving genetics through harvest choices are doing so to presumably increase the prevalence of high-scoring antlers. They’re looking at a middle-aged deer and deciding he doesn’t have much potential, so they hammer him so he “won’t breed.” Too late. Research shows he probably started breeding as a yearling, shortly after his arrival in the area via dispersal.
Breeding starts early every year. Though there is a “rut peak” when the bulk of the breeding takes place, conception dates always form a bell curve on a graph... meaning that a few does come into estrus and are bred well before and well after the peak. Most modern firearms seasons don’t open until close to the peak of the rut, and by that time a fair number of does are already bred. Many times breeding even starts before early archery seasons. The hunter who plans to control breeding with a trigger-pull can’t even begin doing so legally until after (sometimes well after) breeding has begun each fall.
You don’t have the time. If you’re going to shape deer genetics in the wild, part of maintaining control over the genetics is ensuring that every individual buck out there passes through your selective screening process, whatever your criteria might be. I’ve already shown that a lot of breeding takes place before bucks are old enough for you to accurately judge their antler potential, and before you can even legally shoot them each season. Once the season comes in, even if you have help from hunting partners, plenty of bucks that are breeding won’t be seen by you during legal hunting hours and seasons. After all, you have to make an appearance at work and stop by to visit your family every now and then.
Genetic manipulation doesn’t last. It would be impossible for you to achieve the intensity of selective harvest necessary to make measurable changes in genetics across a large region, and even if you could, you would have to keep it up forever. Once breeding control ends, highly selected breeds quickly fall back to a default position. When a hog farmer’s Chester Whites escape into the woods, they revert to black, long-haired, long-nosed, long-toothed feral hogs in a relatively short time. If humans stopped controlling the breeding of pedigreed dogs and let them run loose in the streets, they would unravel back into street mutts in a few generations. If you took the most prized breeder buck from his comfortable pen and turned him out among free-ranging whitetails, he would have no measurable impact on antler size in the region, even if he survived to successfully breed. The expression of that genetic potential could only go as far as local resources allowed (soil quality, habitat quality, herd demographics, hunter management choices). Eventually, his genes would be diluted and swamped by local gene flow.
The fact is, deer don’t have “antler-gene problems” to start with, so it’s kind of silly to explain all the reasons why we can’t manage something that doesn’t exist.
But bucks do have real problems of other kinds that affect antler growth. They often don’t get adequate nutrition in every season. They often are born late because of skewed sex ratios, so they get a delayed start on physical development from the very beginning. They often fall to hunters as yearlings. These are factors we can usually control, with great results. We can:
...enhance nutrition on a year-round basis through habitat improvement and food plots.
...balance adult sex ratios through harvesting does and reducing pressure on bucks.
...protect immature bucks to give them a chance to reach physical maturity.
You can’t see or manage genetics, and it’s not a problem anyway, so don’t waste another minute worrying about it. Instead, invest your time in methods that are proven to get measurable results.
Caiere Chase does not claim any rights to this article. All rights to this article belong to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes.
A SCIENTIST’S PERSPECTIVE The Trojan horse of animal protectionism: The battle over curriculum
Our future will be determined by the children
Virtually every medical advance has used animals in some stage of research or testing. Thus, whether medical progress continues at the same pace in the next century depends upon an informed public supporting the continued use of animals in responsible research and testing. Let us hope that the children of today make their decisions tomorrow using a moral value system that distinguishes between humans and animals and between animal welfare and animal rights.
Confrontation
Some groups have taken a direct approach and clearly label their curriculum as animal rights. They mislead students about issues of animal abuse. Adrian Morrison, the director of animal issues for the National Institutes of Mental Health, summed up their approach best when he said: “Everyone has the right to believe a rat is due the same moral consideration as a child. What is wrong, though, is the promotion of beliefs among the untutored by dishonest presentations of the ways animals are used by humans. Such tactics have, in fact, been used to discredit biomedical research using animals – tactics that were a necessary prelude to the current campaign against biology education: Convince people that animals are badly used in one sphere and reap carry-over benefits from this ‘softening up’ process when you focus on another arena.”1
Deception
Other animal rights groups have elected a devious approach – a secret battle. They disguise their goals and methods by disavowing the methods of the militant animal rights movement. Instead of ‘animal rights,’ they call their curriculum ‘humane and environmental education.’ They avoid the term ‘animal rights’ but teach the same value system. Most educators are unaware of this deception. Teachers welcome humane education as a means to prevent violent behavior in some students and environmental curriculum as a means to develop a sensitivity to the environment. More than 20,000 teachers nationwide have bought into this program.
Have their school efforts been successful? Several different student polls have shown steady gains for the acceptance of the animal rights philosophy. The most alarming of these was a 1993 national Gallop poll which demonstrated that 60 percent of American teenagers “support animal rights,” including bans on all laboratory and medical tests that use animals. How have they been able to produce such a striking change in attitude?
HSUS
The Humane Society of the US with its 1.5 million members calls itself the nation’s largest animal protection organization. Few people know that the HSUS animal protection philosophy is not animal welfare but an animal rights philosophy that says it is morally wrong for humans to use or kill animals and that they have been guided by that philosophy since 1980.2
Furthermore, HSUS has set as its goal the abolition of animals in laboratory research and education.3,4,5 In recent years, HSUS elected to call themselves ‘animal protectionists’ to disassociate their group from the bad press that the Animal Liberation Front and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have brought to the animal rights movement. HSUS shares the same animal rights philosophy and goal of abolishing the use of animals in laboratory research as militant animal rights groups, but they differ in tactics and timetable for reaching that goal. Their tactic is to slowly but progressively wean society away from using animals.
In order to avoid the extremist label HSUS has deliberately sought to project a ‘moderate’ image and hide the animal rights message under animal protectionism and the guise of humane and environmental education. Many of the HSUS projects are laudable and could be described as animal welfare. They work very hard to keep that image. Corporate donations and the respect of the education community are dependant on that image. However, their hidden agenda is to get people to give animals the same respect they give humans. What better method to accomplish a change in societal values than by incorporating it into a nationwide elementary school curriculum on humane and environmental education?
NAHEE
Is HSUS a Trojan Horse being covertly carried into the citadel of elementary education?6
HSUS has endeavored to establish itself as The Authority in humane and environmental education. Indeed, the organization has won several awards for KIND News; has had the Adopt-a-Teacher program placed in the 1992 Environmental Success Index; and had a field representatives appointed to the prestigious National Environmental Education Advisory Council of the Environmental Protection Agency.
To help establish this reputation, HSUS created the National Association for Humane and Environmental Education, a separate youth education division. NAHEE had a 1992 budget of $940,000 and 14 full-time staff , an increase of 31 percent over the 1991 budget. The goals for NAHEE were articulated in the 1992 HSUS annual report: “ ... NAHEE strives to ensure that humane attitudes become a viable part of mainstream education and environmental perspectives. ... NAHEE continues to monitor and evaluate new children’s books, children’s magazines, and newspapers as well as all major elementary and secondary teaching magazines and newspapers to encourage the promotion of humane values in publications other than our own.”7
Indeed, NAHEE has been successful in influencing other publications as evidenced by a series of three grossly misleading articles biased against using animals in medical research which appeared in the nine-million circulation Weekly Reader and its companion for middle schools Current Science.6 NAHEE’s influence even extends beyond the USA as they have sent their educational materials to 13 foreign countries.
It is clear that HSUS has been acknowledged as The Authority and is being warmly welcomed through the educational gates of Troy by unsuspecting teachers and administrators who thought they weregetting ‘humane and environmental education’ but ended up with those elements mixed with a subtle animal rights message that says it is wrong for humans to kill, capture, or use animals for any reason. It is a message that elevates respect for animals to the same plane as respect for humans. This is a brilliant tactic as respect and consideration for animals is a hallmark of animal welfare. HSUS has reduced the difference between animal rights and animal welfare to the degree of respect and consideration given animals, thus blurring the difference between the two.
KIND News, KIND Teacher
NAHEE’s primary effort is directed at publishing and distributing a classroom newspaper covering laudable humane and environmental themes laced with a heavy dose of respect for animals, endangered species, and an emphasis on not harming animals.
Kids In Nature’s Defense (KIND News) is published at three reading levels for children in grades one through six and is read by more than 600,000 children in 20,000 classrooms nationwide. KIND News does not cover controversial animal rights issues. However, the accompanying teachers’ guide (KIND Teacher) brings up animal rights issues without identifying them as such. KIND Teacher indoctrinates children by having the teacher lead discussions on the use of animals in dissection, the use of wild animals in laboratory research, the use of animals in product safety testing, the keeping of wild animals in zoos and circuses, the capture and sale of wild birds, hunting, trapping, and rodeos.8 KIND Teacher also promotes the students to form KIND Clubs and engage in club projects. The nature of the project and the agenda is determined by the club and club president. Given the HSUS emotional and strongly–held position on these issues, can we expect a balanced presentation?
HSUS Student Action Guide
The HSUS Student Action Guide, NAHEE’s newspaper for middle and secondary students, is more direct as it openly seeks to promote activism by forming Earth-Animal Protection Clubs. These clubs target a number of animal rights issues, including laboratory animal research, product safety testing, dissection, animals in science fairs, zoos, animals in entertainment, hunting, trapping, and dolphin-safe tuna. The students are referred to HSUS to obtain specific misleading materials on these issues as well as animal research and so-called alternatives to animal research.
California’s environmental education
Given this background, I was concerned when I learned through the 1992 HSUS annual report that “Materials published by NAHEE such as ‘Sharing Sam’ and lessons from KIND Teacher had been incorporated into A Child’s Place in the Environment, California’s new environmental education curriculum guide. The guide promises to have a substantial impact since one out of nine children in the US attends schools in California. In addition, the guide will inevitably serve as a model nationwide.”
NAHEE and animal rights in California’s school curriculum
In 1993, I obtained a late stage draft of the first grade edition of the guide Respecting Living Things from the California Board of Education. Fortunately, the guide had not been finalized and was still in draft form. I was surprised to find that three out of the nine guide reviewers were affiliated with NAHEE and one NAHEE field representative was on the guide committee.
The guide had a pronounced animal rights bias as half the recommended resources at the end of several units were animal rights books such as The Animal Rights Handbook: 67 Ways to Save the Animals by Anna Sequoia and Animal Rights International, The Animals’ Agenda, and Going Green, A Kid’s Handbook to Saving the Planet. These resources contained grossly misleading and dishonest presentations of how animals are used by humans and in some cases gory pictures of animals that are totally inappropriate for first graders. Furthermore, more than half the resources listed as “organizations concerned with humane treatment of animals” turned out to be animal rights organizations such as HSUS, NAHEE, the Fund for Animals, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute of America. The guide also suggested additional names of humane organizations listed in the book 67 Ways to Save the Animals. There were 77 organizations listed in the book and all 77 were identified by the author as ‘animal rights organizations.’
Respect = sacred reverence for animals
A common theme that ran through the unit on Respecting Living Things was that animals were anthropomorphized and respected to the point that they were elevated to the same plane as humans. Animals were held in such reverence that they were equal to humans. Another theme that was repeated many times was that out of respect for animals, they should not be captured and taken into the classroom for study. The theme “Look, Learn, and Leave Alone” was inviolate. It was even stressed in the teacher preparation section not to capture animals (including insects) for classroom study.
The source of these themes is hard to determine. Were they placed there by the guide’s author? How much influence did NAHEE have on the author or this curriculum? It is interesting to note that Are You A Good Kind Lion, the one poem that NAHEE contributed, contained a line that is the heart of the animal rights message: “Don’t hurt the animals for any reason.” Would that message tell first graders that it is morally wrong to eat animals?
Balance
Working with the California Biomedical Research Association, we took our concerns to the California State Board of Education. We were successful in deleting all the animal rights organizations and books as resources prior to the guide’s publication in 1994. We were also successful in deleting the NAHEE poem “Are You A Good Kind Lion.” Furthermore, the prohibition against capturing animals for classroom examination was replaced with a discussion on the proper methods of capturing and caring for animals.
Although our partial success was heartening, this episode graphically illustrates how close animal rights activists came to having their philosophy accepted as part of the nation’s largest and most influential humane and environmental education curricula. The educational community needs to be alerted to the hidden agenda of “animal protection” organizations. Local humane societies, APHE, and animal rights in schools.
Another source of concern is the local humane societies that have been hijacked and taken over by animal rights activists. They have also developed educational curricula with animal rights propaganda and have been taking it into the schools for many years.
The Association of Professional Humane Educators (formerly known as the Western Humane and Environmental Educators’ Association), a group that is often affiliated with HSUS and NAHEE, is comprised of education officials from at least 21 western humane societies and SPCAs, most of them located in California.
APHE provides a framework for these educators to network and share classroom material on animal rights along with humane and environmental themes. For example, on March 15-16, 1994, APHE (then known as WHEEA) held its annual meeting in San Diego, California. The keynote speaker was Kim Sturla of the Fund for Animals, a national animal rights organization. Two HSUS representatives were in attendance to promote KIND News and Adopt-a-Teacher programs.
The Packrat, the APHE Newsletter, is a bulletin board for animal rights educational material from a large number of animal rights groups such as the American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animals’ Agenda, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rights Information Service, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Fund for Animals, HSUS, Last Chance for Animals, NAHEE, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PeTA Teachers Network, Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the United Coalition of Iditarod Animal Rights Volunteers.
Most humane societies have one or more education officers who go to schools and teach children about proper pet care, humane treatment of animals, endangered species, and environmentalism. Because most teachers perceive the local humane society to be an animal welfare organization, they are welcomed by the schools. APHE members take advantage of this relationship to introduce an animal rights message along with their regular presentations. For example, the Peninsula Humane Society of San Mateo, California, publishes an informative unit on endangered species. However, at the end of the unit, they urge students to read animal rights books, join animal rights organizations, write politicians about animal rights issues, sign petitions about animal rights issues, boycott specific companies that do product safety testing on animals, and boycott products made from animal skins, fur, or other parts. They also provide grossly misleading information on animal research.
Animal rights and New Age religion
If the Catholic Church had set out to indoctrinate public school children with a new moral system imbedded in a humane and environmental curriculum, there would have been a huge outcry and controversy. A religious cult is indoctrinating public school children, but there is little outcry or controversy because the religious overtones and the value system have been masked. The religion is called New Age; the value system is animal rights.
Thomas Berry, an ‘ecotheologian’ and the ‘spiritual guide’ for the HSUS Center for Respect of Life and the Environment, was one of several of the speakers at the HSUS 1992 annual meeting who focused on New Age themes of total reverence and respect for animals and the environment because the spirit of God was in the whole universe equally.
Although totally open about the spiritual and religious aspects of their movement in the annual meeting, HSUS is careful not to present its KIND News as part of a religious movement. In his book What Are They Trying to Do to Us? The Truth about the Animal Rights Movement and the New Age, Bernard Palmer illustrated that the animal rights movement takes on the fundamental tenets of the New Age religion. Furthermore, Rod and Patti Strand make a similar observation about the religious nature of animal rights in their book The Hijacking of the Humane Movement. Both books make the case that the energy that propels the movement is the faithful volunteers spreading the gospel of respect and sacred reverence for animals.
What can you do? Get involved!
By: Patrick H. Cleveland, PhD Date: 05/9/1996
Posted on: www.naiaonline.org/
Virtually every medical advance has used animals in some stage of research or testing. Thus, whether medical progress continues at the same pace in the next century depends upon an informed public supporting the continued use of animals in responsible research and testing. Let us hope that the children of today make their decisions tomorrow using a moral value system that distinguishes between humans and animals and between animal welfare and animal rights.
Confrontation
Some groups have taken a direct approach and clearly label their curriculum as animal rights. They mislead students about issues of animal abuse. Adrian Morrison, the director of animal issues for the National Institutes of Mental Health, summed up their approach best when he said: “Everyone has the right to believe a rat is due the same moral consideration as a child. What is wrong, though, is the promotion of beliefs among the untutored by dishonest presentations of the ways animals are used by humans. Such tactics have, in fact, been used to discredit biomedical research using animals – tactics that were a necessary prelude to the current campaign against biology education: Convince people that animals are badly used in one sphere and reap carry-over benefits from this ‘softening up’ process when you focus on another arena.”1
Deception
Other animal rights groups have elected a devious approach – a secret battle. They disguise their goals and methods by disavowing the methods of the militant animal rights movement. Instead of ‘animal rights,’ they call their curriculum ‘humane and environmental education.’ They avoid the term ‘animal rights’ but teach the same value system. Most educators are unaware of this deception. Teachers welcome humane education as a means to prevent violent behavior in some students and environmental curriculum as a means to develop a sensitivity to the environment. More than 20,000 teachers nationwide have bought into this program.
Have their school efforts been successful? Several different student polls have shown steady gains for the acceptance of the animal rights philosophy. The most alarming of these was a 1993 national Gallop poll which demonstrated that 60 percent of American teenagers “support animal rights,” including bans on all laboratory and medical tests that use animals. How have they been able to produce such a striking change in attitude?
HSUS
The Humane Society of the US with its 1.5 million members calls itself the nation’s largest animal protection organization. Few people know that the HSUS animal protection philosophy is not animal welfare but an animal rights philosophy that says it is morally wrong for humans to use or kill animals and that they have been guided by that philosophy since 1980.2
Furthermore, HSUS has set as its goal the abolition of animals in laboratory research and education.3,4,5 In recent years, HSUS elected to call themselves ‘animal protectionists’ to disassociate their group from the bad press that the Animal Liberation Front and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have brought to the animal rights movement. HSUS shares the same animal rights philosophy and goal of abolishing the use of animals in laboratory research as militant animal rights groups, but they differ in tactics and timetable for reaching that goal. Their tactic is to slowly but progressively wean society away from using animals.
In order to avoid the extremist label HSUS has deliberately sought to project a ‘moderate’ image and hide the animal rights message under animal protectionism and the guise of humane and environmental education. Many of the HSUS projects are laudable and could be described as animal welfare. They work very hard to keep that image. Corporate donations and the respect of the education community are dependant on that image. However, their hidden agenda is to get people to give animals the same respect they give humans. What better method to accomplish a change in societal values than by incorporating it into a nationwide elementary school curriculum on humane and environmental education?
NAHEE
Is HSUS a Trojan Horse being covertly carried into the citadel of elementary education?6
HSUS has endeavored to establish itself as The Authority in humane and environmental education. Indeed, the organization has won several awards for KIND News; has had the Adopt-a-Teacher program placed in the 1992 Environmental Success Index; and had a field representatives appointed to the prestigious National Environmental Education Advisory Council of the Environmental Protection Agency.
To help establish this reputation, HSUS created the National Association for Humane and Environmental Education, a separate youth education division. NAHEE had a 1992 budget of $940,000 and 14 full-time staff , an increase of 31 percent over the 1991 budget. The goals for NAHEE were articulated in the 1992 HSUS annual report: “ ... NAHEE strives to ensure that humane attitudes become a viable part of mainstream education and environmental perspectives. ... NAHEE continues to monitor and evaluate new children’s books, children’s magazines, and newspapers as well as all major elementary and secondary teaching magazines and newspapers to encourage the promotion of humane values in publications other than our own.”7
Indeed, NAHEE has been successful in influencing other publications as evidenced by a series of three grossly misleading articles biased against using animals in medical research which appeared in the nine-million circulation Weekly Reader and its companion for middle schools Current Science.6 NAHEE’s influence even extends beyond the USA as they have sent their educational materials to 13 foreign countries.
It is clear that HSUS has been acknowledged as The Authority and is being warmly welcomed through the educational gates of Troy by unsuspecting teachers and administrators who thought they weregetting ‘humane and environmental education’ but ended up with those elements mixed with a subtle animal rights message that says it is wrong for humans to kill, capture, or use animals for any reason. It is a message that elevates respect for animals to the same plane as respect for humans. This is a brilliant tactic as respect and consideration for animals is a hallmark of animal welfare. HSUS has reduced the difference between animal rights and animal welfare to the degree of respect and consideration given animals, thus blurring the difference between the two.
KIND News, KIND Teacher
NAHEE’s primary effort is directed at publishing and distributing a classroom newspaper covering laudable humane and environmental themes laced with a heavy dose of respect for animals, endangered species, and an emphasis on not harming animals.
Kids In Nature’s Defense (KIND News) is published at three reading levels for children in grades one through six and is read by more than 600,000 children in 20,000 classrooms nationwide. KIND News does not cover controversial animal rights issues. However, the accompanying teachers’ guide (KIND Teacher) brings up animal rights issues without identifying them as such. KIND Teacher indoctrinates children by having the teacher lead discussions on the use of animals in dissection, the use of wild animals in laboratory research, the use of animals in product safety testing, the keeping of wild animals in zoos and circuses, the capture and sale of wild birds, hunting, trapping, and rodeos.8 KIND Teacher also promotes the students to form KIND Clubs and engage in club projects. The nature of the project and the agenda is determined by the club and club president. Given the HSUS emotional and strongly–held position on these issues, can we expect a balanced presentation?
HSUS Student Action Guide
The HSUS Student Action Guide, NAHEE’s newspaper for middle and secondary students, is more direct as it openly seeks to promote activism by forming Earth-Animal Protection Clubs. These clubs target a number of animal rights issues, including laboratory animal research, product safety testing, dissection, animals in science fairs, zoos, animals in entertainment, hunting, trapping, and dolphin-safe tuna. The students are referred to HSUS to obtain specific misleading materials on these issues as well as animal research and so-called alternatives to animal research.
California’s environmental education
Given this background, I was concerned when I learned through the 1992 HSUS annual report that “Materials published by NAHEE such as ‘Sharing Sam’ and lessons from KIND Teacher had been incorporated into A Child’s Place in the Environment, California’s new environmental education curriculum guide. The guide promises to have a substantial impact since one out of nine children in the US attends schools in California. In addition, the guide will inevitably serve as a model nationwide.”
NAHEE and animal rights in California’s school curriculum
In 1993, I obtained a late stage draft of the first grade edition of the guide Respecting Living Things from the California Board of Education. Fortunately, the guide had not been finalized and was still in draft form. I was surprised to find that three out of the nine guide reviewers were affiliated with NAHEE and one NAHEE field representative was on the guide committee.
The guide had a pronounced animal rights bias as half the recommended resources at the end of several units were animal rights books such as The Animal Rights Handbook: 67 Ways to Save the Animals by Anna Sequoia and Animal Rights International, The Animals’ Agenda, and Going Green, A Kid’s Handbook to Saving the Planet. These resources contained grossly misleading and dishonest presentations of how animals are used by humans and in some cases gory pictures of animals that are totally inappropriate for first graders. Furthermore, more than half the resources listed as “organizations concerned with humane treatment of animals” turned out to be animal rights organizations such as HSUS, NAHEE, the Fund for Animals, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute of America. The guide also suggested additional names of humane organizations listed in the book 67 Ways to Save the Animals. There were 77 organizations listed in the book and all 77 were identified by the author as ‘animal rights organizations.’
Respect = sacred reverence for animals
A common theme that ran through the unit on Respecting Living Things was that animals were anthropomorphized and respected to the point that they were elevated to the same plane as humans. Animals were held in such reverence that they were equal to humans. Another theme that was repeated many times was that out of respect for animals, they should not be captured and taken into the classroom for study. The theme “Look, Learn, and Leave Alone” was inviolate. It was even stressed in the teacher preparation section not to capture animals (including insects) for classroom study.
The source of these themes is hard to determine. Were they placed there by the guide’s author? How much influence did NAHEE have on the author or this curriculum? It is interesting to note that Are You A Good Kind Lion, the one poem that NAHEE contributed, contained a line that is the heart of the animal rights message: “Don’t hurt the animals for any reason.” Would that message tell first graders that it is morally wrong to eat animals?
Balance
Working with the California Biomedical Research Association, we took our concerns to the California State Board of Education. We were successful in deleting all the animal rights organizations and books as resources prior to the guide’s publication in 1994. We were also successful in deleting the NAHEE poem “Are You A Good Kind Lion.” Furthermore, the prohibition against capturing animals for classroom examination was replaced with a discussion on the proper methods of capturing and caring for animals.
Although our partial success was heartening, this episode graphically illustrates how close animal rights activists came to having their philosophy accepted as part of the nation’s largest and most influential humane and environmental education curricula. The educational community needs to be alerted to the hidden agenda of “animal protection” organizations. Local humane societies, APHE, and animal rights in schools.
Another source of concern is the local humane societies that have been hijacked and taken over by animal rights activists. They have also developed educational curricula with animal rights propaganda and have been taking it into the schools for many years.
The Association of Professional Humane Educators (formerly known as the Western Humane and Environmental Educators’ Association), a group that is often affiliated with HSUS and NAHEE, is comprised of education officials from at least 21 western humane societies and SPCAs, most of them located in California.
APHE provides a framework for these educators to network and share classroom material on animal rights along with humane and environmental themes. For example, on March 15-16, 1994, APHE (then known as WHEEA) held its annual meeting in San Diego, California. The keynote speaker was Kim Sturla of the Fund for Animals, a national animal rights organization. Two HSUS representatives were in attendance to promote KIND News and Adopt-a-Teacher programs.
The Packrat, the APHE Newsletter, is a bulletin board for animal rights educational material from a large number of animal rights groups such as the American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animals’ Agenda, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Rights Information Service, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Fund for Animals, HSUS, Last Chance for Animals, NAHEE, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PeTA Teachers Network, Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the United Coalition of Iditarod Animal Rights Volunteers.
Most humane societies have one or more education officers who go to schools and teach children about proper pet care, humane treatment of animals, endangered species, and environmentalism. Because most teachers perceive the local humane society to be an animal welfare organization, they are welcomed by the schools. APHE members take advantage of this relationship to introduce an animal rights message along with their regular presentations. For example, the Peninsula Humane Society of San Mateo, California, publishes an informative unit on endangered species. However, at the end of the unit, they urge students to read animal rights books, join animal rights organizations, write politicians about animal rights issues, sign petitions about animal rights issues, boycott specific companies that do product safety testing on animals, and boycott products made from animal skins, fur, or other parts. They also provide grossly misleading information on animal research.
Animal rights and New Age religion
If the Catholic Church had set out to indoctrinate public school children with a new moral system imbedded in a humane and environmental curriculum, there would have been a huge outcry and controversy. A religious cult is indoctrinating public school children, but there is little outcry or controversy because the religious overtones and the value system have been masked. The religion is called New Age; the value system is animal rights.
Thomas Berry, an ‘ecotheologian’ and the ‘spiritual guide’ for the HSUS Center for Respect of Life and the Environment, was one of several of the speakers at the HSUS 1992 annual meeting who focused on New Age themes of total reverence and respect for animals and the environment because the spirit of God was in the whole universe equally.
Although totally open about the spiritual and religious aspects of their movement in the annual meeting, HSUS is careful not to present its KIND News as part of a religious movement. In his book What Are They Trying to Do to Us? The Truth about the Animal Rights Movement and the New Age, Bernard Palmer illustrated that the animal rights movement takes on the fundamental tenets of the New Age religion. Furthermore, Rod and Patti Strand make a similar observation about the religious nature of animal rights in their book The Hijacking of the Humane Movement. Both books make the case that the energy that propels the movement is the faithful volunteers spreading the gospel of respect and sacred reverence for animals.
What can you do? Get involved!
- Give a copy of this article to your friends.
- See if your school subscribes to KIND News and check your school’s curriculum on humane and environmental education.
- Find out if local humane societies are invited to give presentations and if these presentations contain animal rights propaganda.
- Ask to see the material and teachers guides.
- Alert your child’s teachers, administrators, and school board about animal rights messages hidden in humane and environmental curriculum.
- Volunteer at your local school.
- If animals rights is discussed, make sure that a balanced discussion of the issue is presented.
- Check the school library for books presenting both viewpoints.
- Encourage your professional society, institution, or employer to support education programs that present the use of animals by society in a balanced manner. (The Massachusetts Society for Medical Research has produced such a program entitled People and Animals: United for Health Teaching Curriculum. Contact MSMR at www.msmr.org, msmr@att.net, or (978) 251-1556 (phone) or (978) 251-7683 (fax).
By: Patrick H. Cleveland, PhD Date: 05/9/1996
Posted on: www.naiaonline.org/
Caiere Chase does not own the rights to this article. All rights to this article belong to the author and original publisher. This article is reproduced here for news, critique and archival purposes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)