🇺🇸By Nathan Libby, FC1 (AW), U.S. Navy (Vet.)

Why make him suffer?! art: file photo

Four major universities are squeezing the life out of thousands of animals in cruel, deadly and ineffective decompression sickness and oxygen toxicity experiments bankrolled by more than $3.8 million in taxpayer funding awarded by the U.S. Navy – even though the Navy knows the senseless tests don’t help humans.

Although these tests on animals at Duke University, the University of Maryland/Baltimore, the University of South Florida and the University of San Diego purportedly study the phenomenon called “the bends,” a painful condition that arises from the rapid reduction of ambient pressure leading to the formation of nitrogen bubbles in the bloodstream, their results fail to translate effectively to the condition experienced by humans susceptible to the bends, such as deep-sea divers.

The crude procedures include cutting open rats’ abdomens; embedding a recording device inside them and probing wires along their body through their back, neck and skull; inducing seizures without pain relief; and drilling into their skulls and attaching electrodes to their heads. In some experiments, mice as young as 8 to 12 weeks are confined to a decompression chamber for up to 60 minutes at a time in order to induce air embolism to mimic the bends and are injected with experimental substances. But wait — there’s more.

Mice and rats used in these tests are forced to run on treadmills and are electroshocked if they fail to keep up. Experimenters also insert probes into mice’s rectums, put petroleum-based chemicals into their eyes, drill into their skulls, inject chemicals into their brains and force them into carbon dioxide gas chambers. When experimenters have finished tormenting the animals, they kill them.

Other animals are not viable stand-ins for humans in studies of the bends due to important differences in the species’ anatomy and physiology. Furthermore, human divers experience varying depths, dive durations and individual factors that contribute to the condition, making it challenging to extrapolate reliable data from animal experiments. In fact, a former director of the Navy Medical Research and Development Center, Dr. Wayman W. Cheatham, has admitted as much, stating, “The impact of physiological differences between species with regard to disease processes … is well recognized throughout the medical research community.”

🎖️The Navy can’t rightfully claim to be a world leader in human-relevant medical research as long as it continues tormenting animals in barbaric tests that it knows are irrelevant to human health. These experiments make the Navy an outlier among the navies of our peer nations. The navies of France and the U.K., for instance, have already scrapped their animal testing programs for studying decompression sickness.

There are better ways for the Navy to achieve its goals. Sophisticated in vitro studies and reanalysis of existing human-diver data have already yielded promising results that are directly applicable to humans in diving conditions. Machine-learning techniques may aid in the prediction of symptoms such as seizures during hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Computational modeling can improve the performance of dive computers in order to equip divers to avoid the bends.

Last year, the Navy terminated its funding of decompression experiments conducted on sheep at the University of Wisconsin/Madison up to two years ahead of schedule after People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sent Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro a complaint.

Tormenting and killing animals doesn’t advance human health, but advanced non-animal, human-relevant research methods do. It’s high time for the Navy to sink its pointless decompression sickness and oxygen toxicity tests on animals.

By Melissa Rae Sanger

Bee kind! art: PETA

My fascination with bees began in a rather peculiar way: by adopting a dog named QB from our local animal shelter. We went from calling him QB to just B, and my children embellished his new nickname by indulging me with all things bee: bee T-shirts, bee pictures, bee keychains – you name it, I have it. What started as a sweet tribute to our dog became a newfound inspiration.

I decided to become a backyard beekeeper. I read books, frequented meetings and watched documentaries. I let wildflowers take over my gardens. My father built me the most beautiful hive. I was getting closer to my goal of welcoming bees — until one event altered my perception of “beekeeping” forever. September may be National Honey Month, but as I would soon learn, taking honey from bees is anything but sweet.

Filled with excitement, I attended my first hands-on honeybee workshop. I delighted in the sweet banana-like aroma in the air (which I later learned was an alarm pheromone bees emit when they feel threatened), harmonized with the gentle buzzing and felt the vibrations from thousands of tiny, delicate wings as I held a live frame for the first time. I was, without exaggeration, moved to tears.

But nothing could have prepared me for what happened next.

With the nonchalance of a server refilling a water glass, the instructor filled a mason jar with rubbing alcohol. I watched in horror as she quickly scooped what she estimated to be about 300 bees into a measuring cup and dumped them into the jar filled with the toxic liquid. Once she secured the lid, she began vigorously shaking the jar, passing it to the closest student for a go. I could hear the desperate bees inside, their buzzing growing softer with each shake.

After everyone (except me) had taken a turn, she poured the discolored liquid into a tub and flung the dead bees onto the grass, explaining that she was getting a “mite count.” Varroa mites commonly afflict bees, and although I knew that we would be learning about treatment options during this workshop, I had no idea that we’d also be getting an education in beekeeping’s dark side.

I mustered the courage to raise my hand. “Would the number of mites affect the course of treatment?” I asked. Her answer? “No.” Whether the alcohol wash revealed a mite count of one or one thousand, the treatment would stay the same. I asked if there was a humane way to determine a mite count. Her answer? “Yes.”

My gentle fascination turned to rage.

Why should these sentient beings be treated with such extreme disregard and cruelty? Bees demonstrate self-awareness, recognize human (and possibly bee) faces, process short- and long-term memories while sleeping and perhaps even dream. They can feel anxious, optimistic, fearful and frustrated—just like us. Yet bees who are factory-farmed for honey (even when the “factory farm” is in someone’s backyard) are exploited and killed, as if their suffering were of no consequence.

Beekeepers crush drones to death to extract their sperm, then immobilize the queen in a tiny gas chamber so they can artificially inseminate her. And they routinely clip her wings to prevent swarming (a colony’s natural means of reproducing), holding her hostage in her own home. All so we can pillage their honey.

The psychological stress inflicted on bees by the honey industry is a significant contributor to colony collapse disorder, which has caused a sharp decline in bee populations over the past decade. Simply put, humans’ greed is stressing bees, and it’s killing them.

Bees have as much of a right to live free from pain and suffering as we do. Unless we stop seeing them as a collective and start respecting them as individuals, their populations will continue to deteriorate. One of the simplest ways to help them is to stop stealing their honey and enjoy agave nectar, rice syrup or maple syrup instead.

As for me, I’ve decided to forgo beekeeping and spend my time spreading awareness of the plight of these precious pollinators. Bees need all the friends they can get.

By Sergeant Carla Gunn, U.S. Army (Ret.)

The U.S. Army now permits the use of weapons to wound dogs, monkeys and other animals in misguided laboratory experiments after a decades-long ban. This perplexing about-face is disturbing and shortsighted and, above all, deprives injured troops of the best available human-relevant scientific research. The Army must do another about-face on this policy.

In 1983, PETA successfully campaigned to shut down a U.S. Department of Defense “wound lab” in which dogs, goats and other animals were shot with high-powered weapons, supposedly to study human wounds and how they heal. The campaign resulted in the first-ever permanent ban on shooting dogs and cats in wound labs.

The Army then issued Regulation 40-33 in 2005, banning the use of dogs, cats, marine animals and other primates in tests that developed “biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.”

But all this changed in 2020 after the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command quietly issued Policy 84, which explicitly allows “[t]he purchase or use of dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, or marine mammals to inflict wounds upon using a weapon for the purpose of conducting medical research, development, testing, or evaluation ….”

In March 2022, PETA uncovered this policy shift and filed a public records request asking for documentation of these weapon-wounding tests on animals. The Army initially said there are in “excess of 2,000 pages” of responsive documents. It later backtracked, stating that there is only one responsive experimental protocol, which an official claimed is “classified … in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.”

PETA has appealed, seeking the release of a redacted version of the requested information, but has yet to hear from the Army. We also sent a letter to Secretary of the U.S. Army Christine Wormuth urging her to reinstate the previous ban on such tests. And we escalated the matter through a complaint to her boss, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III. We’ve received no reply.

However, in October of last year, a few months after PETA submitted our records request, an Army spokesperson issued a statement saying the department had “no ongoing animal wounding programs” and that it “[did] not have any studies related to wounding cats or dogs.”

This is misleading, given that PETA has confirmed with the U.S. Army Medical Command that at least one recent “classified” weapon-wounding testing protocol using dogs, cats, monkeys or marine animals exists. Furthermore, in March of this year, Politico.com reported that the Pentagon had recently exposed primates to “pulsed radio frequency” directed-energy weapons. The Army has also issued a $750,000 taxpayer-funded grant active through September of this year for a brain injury experiment that involves bombarding 48 ferrets with directed-energy weapons, such as radiofrequency waves, in an attempt to mimic the symptoms of Havana syndrome.

Maiming animals doesn’t reveal anything about how humans heal from similar wounds. When studying wound-healing phenomena, dogs, cats, monkeys, dolphins, ferrets and others are poor stand-ins for humans, at best. It may be overstating the obvious, but the significant physiological and biological differences between humans and other animal species complicate and render useless the results of tests on nonhuman species when it comes to outcomes for humans.

Alternatives to this bloodshed exist. Minimally invasive studies have used healthy human volunteers to develop models for studying how wounds heal. New-generation molecular tools that require only small amounts of human skin tissue are also available. And a modern in vitro model to study wound healing has been developed by researchers at Harvard and Boston universities.

These superior research methods don’t use animals, and their results are directly applicable to humans. Mission accomplished.

The Army is fighting a losing battle. Not only is intentionally wounding animals with weapons gruesome, it also simply can’t provide the best-available science-backed information required to increase the combat readiness of our military and help wounded fighters. The guardians of our freedom deserve no less than the best, including the support of technologically advanced, animal-free, human-relevant research methods instead of archaic, grotesque, and useless weapon-wounding tests on animals.

By Jennifer O’Connor

Monkey reaching out from her cage. photos: PETA

School is out, and the open road beckons. Summer vacations are what memories are made of, and with so many choices, it’s hard to narrow down the right destination. But whether you decide to stay close to home or travel to far-flung destinations, please don’t spend any time or money in places where animals are forced to entertain the public.

You’ll spot the billboards on every highway — appeals to pull over to see every novelty from live alligators to dancing bears. It may be tempting to take a break and check things out, but tourists who buy tickets are unwittingly keeping animals in servitude until the day they die.

Just about anybody — whether or not they have any qualifications — can apply for and receive a U.S. Department of Agriculture animal exhibitor’s license.

Roadside zoos are typically privately owned and on precarious financial footing. At these facilities, naturally far-ranging animals like lions, bears, tigers and primates are usually housed in cramped cages consisting of chain-link fencing and concrete floors. Their comfort is an afterthought.

Since most of these places operate with little staff or money, cages are often poorly maintained and filled with urine and feces. The grounds are typically littered with garbage and never-ending “improvement projects.” The animals might not be provided with any kind of enrichment beyond an old tire or a dead tree branch to help them pass the seemingly interminable days.

Many calculating operators have taken to adding the word “sanctuary” or “rescue” to their names, knowing that kind people are drawn in by such claims. But far too many of these outfits are nothing more than breeders, dealers and exhibitors exploiting the public’s goodwill and generosity.

These kinds of scam operations aren’t only here in the U.S.; they’re everywhere:

Throughout Asia, tourists find appeals to visit elephant “sanctuaries” for up-close encounters. But no legitimate elephant sanctuary allows hands-on interactions with the public, and that includes letting tourists ride the elephants or give them baths. When not being forced to labor, the elephants at these sham sanctuaries are chained, and they always live in fear of being beaten with a bullhook — a heavy baton with a sharp steel hook on the end. TRAFFIC, a leading international wildlife-trade monitoring network, released an exposé showing how tourism actually drives the suffering of elephants, including when they’re captured in their natural forest homes.

Bear in China with permanent nose ring.

“Swim With Dolphins” programs are another common tourist draw. In nature, dolphins swim vast distances every day in extended family pods. They are keenly intelligent, have complex social ties and use echolocation to navigate and judge distances. In captivity, even the largest tank feels like a prison to them. Captive dolphins often die far short of their expected lifespan.

Animals are suffering even at well-known, popular tourist destinations, including the Grand Canyon; Santorini, Greece; the pyramids of Giza in Egypt; and Petra in Jordan, where horses, donkeys and camels are forced to haul sightseers around on their backs or in carriages. They are worked to exhaustion, often in the scorching heat, with no access to water.

A dolphin in his natural habitat: THE OCEAN!

Return home from your vacation with photos and happy anecdotes – not memories of despairing dolphins, stressed bears or battered horses! Their mistreatment should be condemned by all compassionate people!

Every traveler must pledge not to spend a dime on businesses that exploit animals.

By Rebecca Libauskas

Perfection.❤️ photo: R.T.

Our yards are teeming with life, from fluttering moth wings to the dynamic march of ants. Yet many people see bugs and other tiny animals as “pests” that should be eradicated — rather than as individuals who want to live. Using pesticides not only harms insects but can also have severe long-term consequences for other animals and the environment.

I’m fortunate to live in a neighborhood where algae-covered ponds, untouched ravines and elder trees provide a home for various animals, including bugs. During the summer months, the glitter of lightning bugs and the symphony of chirps and buzzes create an enchanted atmosphere in my yard — an ambiance that is almost nonexistent in more manicured suburban areas.

Although I enjoy the magic of bugs, I know that they don’t exist for me. Like all sentient beings, insects have their own desires, needs and purpose in the ecosystem. They have their own value — whether they add joy to my life or not.

Scientists are discovering that insects may experience a range of emotions, including pleasure, depression and optimism. A study by researchers at the University of Arizona and King’s College London reveals striking similarities in how the brains of different animals — like flies and humans — regulate behavior. And insects are much more intelligent than was once believed: Bees can count up to four, cockroaches can play dead and wasps can use tools.

Insects may not communicate in ways we understand, but they have feelings. When threatened, trapped or killed, they can experience fear, stress and anxiety. Still, many humans dump harsh pesticides onto insects’ homes — claiming these areas as their lawns — without blinking an eye. It makes me wonder: Why is the golf-course aesthetic preferable to an untamed tangle of native wildflowers, anyway?

Perhaps this ideal will change as more people become aware that when they spray to get rid of a specific “problem” — like mosquitos or dandelions — they also place the life of every insect in the area at risk. Some are misled by packaging or ads that claim a product is “eco-friendly.” But it’s impossible for an insecticide to spare all non-target victims. Pollinators, including bees and butterflies, are particularly susceptible to herbicides because these chemicals can obliterate their food sources. And the damage doesn’t stop at insects: Studies show that pesticides and herbicides have caused a decline in some bird species populations. Insecticides can also pose a risk to human health.

Change starts with us. Try talking with your neighbors about allowing a patch of native plants in your yard, planting a butterfly garden at a local park or spreading information in neighborhood groups about the harm caused by pesticides. Consider building insect habitats, such as “bug hotels,” with your children or local scout troops to provide shelter and nesting sites. And remember that there are always humane ways of dealing with unwanted insects. Mosquitos can’t fly in the wind, so in summer, when I enjoy the magic in my yard, I run an extension cord and a fan to avoid becoming dinner. Another tip? Ticks hate the smell of lemon, lavender and peppermint, so any of these can be rubbed onto exposed skin to prevent bites. And you can add rose geranium oil to your canine companion’s collar before a hike. There are many other helpful tips like these on the internet.

We must change — before it’s too late: According to a 2019 report by the journal Biological Conservation, there has been a global decline of 40% in insect species populations and one-third of those species are at risk of extinction.

By protecting and preserving insects, we can help sustain the complex web of life on our planet.