RESPECT - I believe in respect for all living things.

I am a vegetarian. I strive to in all ways to avoid being responsible for or causing pain, suffering or death to another living being when I can sustain myself without inflicting such on them.  I abstain from all forms of meat and flesh (including beef, poultry, pork, venison, rabbit, fish, crustaceans, etc.) as well as the by-products of meat production such as gelatin-based products or cheeses made with rennet. 

I aspire to veganism because I worry about the harm and torment that my drinking milk and eating eggs brings to the animals which produce both products.  I have not achieved that but work to at least diminish my use by choosing alternating cow's milk such as rice or soy milk and tofu in shakes and pasta dishes and by buying only eggs from free-range/cage-free (non-factory farmed) chickens.  I still have a long way to go, but I try my best and that's all anyone can really do.

I do not feel justified in eating anything (or anyone) that I could not or would not be willing to harvest (kill) for myself, thus I do not eat any animals.  I do not believe in the taking of a life or intentional/purposeful infliction of suffering unless it is not a life-and-death situation for me.  In other words, I don’t deny that we all carry an instinct or inherent desire for self-preservation. I acknowledge that no matter what my intellect and ethics tell me is right or how strong my convictions may be, in a life and death circumstance/struggle, I would probably defend myself even to the death of another. Eating meat, however, is not a necessity for the preservation of my life—neither in the immediate nor the long-term, therefore, I do not feel justified in taking an animals life to sustain my own.

As Albert Schweitzer said, "Out of such heart-breaking experiences that often shamed me there slowly arose in me the unshakable conviction that we had the right to bring pain and death to another being only in case of inescapable necessity, and that all of us must feel the horror that lies in thoughtless torturing and killing."

[The Animal World of Albert Schweitzer -- from his journals/writings -- pgs 46-47 (Kindheit pp 25-26)]

There will likely always be a symbiotic relationship between man and beast—necessary for living in harmony and dictated by man’s responsibility for the domestication (and endangering) of animals both that share our homes and our land. This is a responsibility I take serious, but also take with great joy. I love sharing my home and the necessities of life with fellow creatures (especially feline and canine) and sharing mutual affection with them.

I accept that due to man's many mistakes and overpopulation over the years, some animals only survive in zoos or wildlife conservation parks and that is our duty, our moral obligation, to care for those creatures we have endangered through hunting, trapping and the expansion of our borders (population) into their habitats. I support these places so long as the animal's welfare, health and happiness are the foremost priority.

I believe that it is unnecessary to use animals—killing them and wearing their skins—for clothing as there are a multitude of viable alternatives available. In many, if not all, cases, the synthetic option is a superior product.  With the popularity of the Internet and expansion of shipping companies (with worldwide territories), there remains no excuse for not buying these alternative products. Shopping today for those alternative products is no longer limited to your corner store, the nearest mall or big box discount retailers in your neighborhood. And after all, speaking with our dollars is the best way of making our voice heard.

I am also opposed to commercially produced wool products because, while sheep are not (necessarily) killed in the harvest of wool (it is sheared off them), in the commercial farming settings these sheep are often mistreated and abused to increase production and profits while decreasing care and costs.

While I dream of utopia, I am still a realist at heart...I know that it is highly unlike in the modern world to convince science and its community that discoveries and solutions can be made and found without animal research, therefore, I personally wish that animals lives not be used, but I am willing to seek a compromise -- to diminish animal use as much as possible. I have read legimate science publications which state that the animal models frequently used in research (for cures of human diseases) are not appropriate or adequate in representing humans.

I absolutely do not believe in the use of animals for testing cosmetics or household cleaners. They are, after years and years of such experiments, uncessary. Therefore, I avoid products tested on animals (and those by made/sold by companies that continue to test products on animals).  I realize that a great many of the products we have now were once tested on animals. By not using products from companies which still test on animals, I am again "voting with my dollars" and avoid supporting them in their continuing conduct.  Also, if/when I write them about their continued use of animals in experimentation and testing when there are viable alternatives available, I am sending them an even more direct message that at least one consumer is not going to support them.

There are types and degrees of animal abuse and cruelty. Some forms are deliberate, direct and/or intentional while others are indirect, unintentional or resulting from ignorance or neglect.

Deliberate/direct abuse or cruelty is almost always easier to spot (and rail against).  It may involve companion or wild animals beaten, shot, stabbed, strangled, or set on fire out of anger, aggression, boredom and/or psychoses, or domestic animals factory farmed in substandard conditions, mistreated and killed or abused for man’s profit (and pleasure) to meet the needs of his wardrobe or appetite. 

Indirect or passive abuse are often more complicent in nature such as supporting industries which perpetrate or result in the abuse against animals such as buying, using, wearing and/or eating animal products.

I believe that in prosecuting and sentencing those commiting crimes against animals, the judicial and incarceration systems should offer:

• Punishment and/or correction including jail time and community service not just probation
• Rehabilitation including psychology evaluation and (when applicable) treatment
• Restitution and/or apologies to the victims family (when applicable)

Unfortunately the system often fails due in large part to weak laws and slap-on-the-wrist sentencing of animal abusers. 

Current behaviors by individuals acting as and claiming to espouse ALF philosophy are doing more harm than good--to animals and to the legitamacy of the animal rights (animal advocacy) movement. (I also believe I will be unpopular with many animal rights activists for this stance.)

The ORIGINAL ALF CREED as published in the book Free the Animals: The Amazing True Story of the Animal Liberation Front written by PETA Founder and President Ingrid Newkirk as communicated by "K", British ALF Trainer to "Valeria" and Other ALF Trainees:

"The ALF creed prohibits any violence to life of any kind.  Locks, decapitators, electrode implanters, cages, traps are fair game.  But neither man nor mouse do we hurt.  If you fancy that kind of thing, call yourself something else, but don't come around here."

The problem with any non-organized and covert organization is that anyone can act in their name whether or not they are actually following the principal tenents of the (non-)group. At its foundation and origin, the ALF was about respect and compassion. It was about saving lives and causing no harm.  No one, not human or non-human animals, was to be harmed by their actions.  They sought only to rescue animals.  They destroyed only those instruments of vivisection which contributed to suffering and pain and copied research files to document abuse of animals (and funds) they did not destroy them. The non-organization came or evolved in the U.S. simultaneously with PETA, and in the beginning used PETA to disseminate information and documentation about cases involving animal abuse and neglect. 

PETA founder, Alex Pancheo as a college student with high ideals worked as a lab assistant in Springfield where monkeys were the subject of experimentation.  During his time at the lab he discovered and documented abuse and neglect of the subject animals and thus abuse of the funding provided by the NIH.  Atrocities against these creatures was brought to light and so-called scientists were prosecuted by the state. When it looked like the abused creatures would be returned to abusers, individuals dedicated to the original ALF model of rescue came together to steal the chimps and placed them in veterinary care and rehabilitative habitats.  These animals were not released to the wild, no one was harmed, no research/results destroyed. As a result of this case, PETA was formed to fight for the rights of animals as sentient beings. 

That said, I believe that the ALF or those claiming to be ALF have foresaken that original mission of rescue only. They are destructive, dangerous and even in a way abusive. They (and their evironmental equivalent, the Earth Liberation Front/ELF) tarnish the image of those who would seek to stop of the suffering of animals and set back the cause with their unlawful measures.

Rescue being “removing from danger” -- saving sentient beings (like the severely neglected dog in the neighborhood who will die without intervention) from torture and certain death.  I believe that all law-abiding options should be tried and exhausted before any other actions are considered. I believe that those abusing/neglecting animals should be given the opportunity to make the situation right before further actions are taken. After that, if an individual is willing to break the law to save and rescue an animal, I believe he should be equally willing to face the consequences of that actions as payment or restitution for the salvation he has offered that creature.

I do not believe in the irresponsible release of animals to the wild—be it one, ten, or thousands—which are ill-prepared to survive and will likely negatively impact that environment further upsetting the balance of nature. It is not beneficial to anyone, least of all the animals.  It is a merely a transference of their death sentence from the hands of man to the elements of nature, both of which may be slow and painful. 

I do not believe throwing bricks through windows, dowsing people with paint or ketchup, blowing up or shooting at buildings, setting fires or violently screaming into someone’s face. That is not rescue, that is not educational, and that is most definitely NOT productive. 

My arguments are always and will always be raised, presented and communicated in an environment promoting education, enlightenment and mutual respect.  As an advocate of animals and animal rights, I feel that campaigns which do not promote (and demonstrate) compassion to humans as well as animals, educate or maintain open lines of communication are not beneficial.  Campaigns which utilize humiliation of any sentient being, promote junk science, or skew history are far smart and enlightening.  I have never believed in showy, “in-your-face” methods of communicating my beliefs and have long believed that letting my actions speak as loudly as my words is as important, if not more so, to convincing others that message is valid.