What Wayne Pacelle and Michael Vick Have in Common

You wouldn’t think that Wayne Pacelle and Michael Vick have much in common, but as I reflect on it, they have three things in common: 1) they both tried to make money off of the tortured and enslaved dogs at Bad Newz Kennels (Vick’s dog fighting operation), 2) they both tried to have those dogs killed (Vick did it with his own hands, Pacelle publicly called for their destruction), and 3) as of this week they both “work” for HSUS.

Is this troubling to anyone except me? The announcement that Michael Vick will be helping HSUS with an anti-dog fighting campaign could not have come at a better time for Vick who will be meeting with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in the next few days (according to the Washington Post) to discuss his reinstatement into the NFL. Goodell has been very sensitive to the recent scandals, including Vick, to hit the NFL, and wants to be able to show, if reinstated that Vick is changed. HSUS will certainly help sell Vick’s case here.

I oppose Vick’s reinstatement into the NFL purely because I don’t think he’s sorry for anything except getting caught and I don’t think he should ever be a role model to anyone again. But in case you’re new to this story let me fill you in a little.

Michael Vick didn't just run a dog-fighting ring--he killed dogs with his own hands, devised horrible, slow deaths for dogs who lost in the ring, and by his own admission enjoyed throwing people's pets into the ring with fighting dogs and laughing while they were torn apart. Consider this and tell me if this man is capable of regretting any of his actions (except getting caught) or ever empathizing with anyone.

If you let that one sink in, consider this--if you don't believe he's sorry, or even capable of being sorry, what do you think that the inner-city youths he's supposedly going to reach out to are going to think? And if they don't believe that he's sincere or believes that they shouldn't fight dogs, what message are they going to take home from that? Do you think kids are too stupid to sense insincerity? I for one can distinctly remember in my own childhood completely dismissing messages that I later learned were true and actually valuable, simply because I could smell insincerity and condescension on the speakers. Kids can tell the difference between someone who is lying to benefit themselves and someone who sincerely wants to help them avoid the mistakes they made themselves.

I have to also wonder if there weren’t NFL players who love dogs and don't enjoy killing them in gruesome manners who could contribute to a PSA campaign or educational materials? Because there are a lot of people out there who love dogs and many of them do play professional sports.

But let me return to my original comparison—Pacelle tried to profit from the dogs, the victims in this story, and then he tried to kill them.

Mr. Pacelle has refused for two years now to respond to the allegations that he raised donations off of the Vick dogs, claiming that HSUS was physically caring for the dogs, even though none of that money went to care for the dogs. Pacelle has not apologized for stealing those donations and then advocating that the dogs all be killed. This did happen. It is a fact. It's very serious. And Wayne thinks he's above any accountability and will never respond. Many serious allegations about his conduct and the conduct of senior staff and managers at HSUS have been raised over the past few years and they will never answer any of those questions. They might respond by accusing those asking the questions of wrongdoing or by bragging about some other program they have, but they are incapable of giving a straightforward yes or no answer. And the refusal to give a straight answer should really tell us as much or more than the straight answer would have. Because if these things were false, I'd have to think, after they've been brought up over and over then someone with some authority from HSUS would have tried to put it to rest.

In deciding to work with Vick HSUS is being purposefully divisive. They cannot be unaware at how offensive this will be to all the people working in the trenches desperately trying to save abused, neglected, broken animals. But this is not the only time they’ve been divisive. HSUS took a public stand against the SHAC activists who (whether you agree with their methods or not) are doing hard prison time for website activities which anti-abortion activists use with complete impunity all of the time. Why does that matter? Because even though I was troubled by some aspects of the SHAC campaign I don’t think people should go to prison for doing things to help animals that are accepted in other causes. If nothing else how is an activist to navigate what is legal and what isn’t, when it is their desire to help animals which is outlawed, not necessarily how they do it.

HSUS won't oppose the AETA, even though it’s essentially a thought-police law (it outlaws the motives behind protests, not the methods used). In fact Mike Markarian has made statements in support of it and for the draconian sentences imposed through the AETA against SHAC activists. If you're having trouble following this it boils down to this, Pacelle and Markarian believe that the large sentences that SHAC activists (Lauren is serving 8 years right now) received are fair and just--for running a website, admittedly an extreme website, from which nobody was ever hurt. Maybe some fax machines got gummed up from all black faxes, but other than that I don’t think anything really bad happened. And HSUS is fine with the incredibly light sentence that Michael Vick got. And they want to work with Vick, but cannot work with anyone who advocates abolition or no-kill. For fuck's sake, that's just too extreme, but killing and fighting dogs is totally forgivable.

HSUS was also divisive in establishing their own conference TAFA as a rival to the long-established AR conferences. This might be fine if they were willing to welcome all views to the table, but instead they insure nobody (and I mean nobody, regardless of other views) can advocate an abolition platform there. So-called humane farmers who promote breeding, enslaving and slaughtering animals can speak there, but nobody for No-Kill, and nobody taking a hard vegan line. Then they turn around and call other activists divisive when we suddenly question what’s going on. It seems their definition of unity is to agree with whatever comes out of Wayne's mouth, and if we don’t we are suddenly the problem.

It seems we have some difficulty in this movement calling a spade a spade, and some of that stems from disagreement over what exactly a spade is, and the definition of the word is... Yes, I’m being sarcastic. We know what’s up, don’t we? We just don’t want to know.

This means some people are able to witness Pacelle lying and HSUS sending out fraudulent fundraising materials and are able to see HSUS embrace "humane farmers" (who still slaughter animals) at the TAFA conference but turn away fellow animal activists... Anyway, people are able to witness all of this and still insist that HSUS means well and they really want abolition (secretly, they're just saying the opposite to be all tricky) and they really want us all to be unified and hug and sing kumbaya together. So you see all the actions that add up to one conclusion and toss it out the window because "nah, it can't be that..."

Sometimes actions do tell a story. Sometimes the actions of a person or group reveal their motives and goals more than words do. Sometimes the actions and the words are all pointing in one direction and so to avoid admitting there's a problem we stop believing our own ears and eyes.

So we want to believe in Wayne Pacelle so badly as our perfect untarnished hero that we will ourselves to un-know what we already know. Do we need our white knight so badly that we'll turn aside reality to keep believing? And what does that say about the influence another hero, Michael Vick might have should he return to the NFL?

For further reading, please see Nathan Winograd's post on the topic, it's incredibly informative.

My review of the Peace for All Creatures Zine

The first thing I noticed when I got my copy of the Peace to All Creatures zine was the beautiful cover artwork, which showed in vibrant colors the artists love for birds. Throughout the zine I found other gorgeous art and eye-catching photos. This zine is certainly a feast for the eyes as well as food for thought. The art showed with great visual impact that loving and helping the animals all around us is not just about sacrifice and hard work, it’s also joyful, loving, and rewarding.

I love how this slim volume covered such divergent topics, whatever your interests or current involvement in animal issues you’ll find something in this zine custom-tailored to you. Topics ranged from an amazing recipe for Choco-chunk cookies (and who doesn’t love cookies) to a humorous take on that experience familiar to all rescuers—loving an animal with hygiene, health, or odor issues. I consider myself pretty well-versed in animal issues but even I learned many new things, how artists create masterpieces out of trash and the intricate, peaceful lives of snails just to name a few. You’ll also find instructions on how to do more to help animals and reduce your environmental footprint.

I found the article on using nutrition to prevent skin cancer engrossing since skin cancer runs in my own family. Articles on freegansim and expanding our concepts of equality will challenge the reader to look a little more deeply at our culture and ourselves.

In the end, this zine certainly lives up to its name, as it shows all of us, no matter how busy we are or how much we currently do to help animals, that we really can try to bring peace to all creatures, including our fellow human creatures, and all the non-humans who share the planet with us. Many thanks to all the contributors and to editors Pippi Howard and Jessi VanPelt for bringing us this lovely and thought-provoking publication.

Surviving the Salad Bar

More Vegan Eating Tips

I don’t know about you but I’m less than thrilled when someone suggests going to a restaurant with a “huge salad bar.” The reason isn’t that I don’t care for salad, in fact I love salad. It’s that a meat eater’s idea of a great salad bar and my ideal salad bar differ greatly. And if we’re going to a steak house with a salad bar, just guess who designed and filled the salad bar. That’s right, the person whose idea of a complete menu is six different types of grilled cow flesh.

Oh vegans, I know you feel my pain on this one.

When I’ve eaten out with co-workers (not a vegan or vegetarian among them) they often insist on the steak house with the “beautiful salad bar.” In fact they get annoyed and think I’m being difficult if I point out that I don’t love that salad bar. From their viewpoint a salad bar ought to be vegan heaven.

Let me describe this scene of horror for you.

First there are two types of lettuce. There is a big bowl of iceberg lettuce and then another bowl with romaine. The romaine is pre-dressed in César dressing and grated cheese. There are endless bowls of various pre-made salads, Jell-O and fruit salad, pasta salad, potato salad, Cole slaw, most of these have mayo in them, and some have bacon in them. Then there are about six different types of cheeses. Also present are bowls of different meats you can top your salad with: bacon of course, ham, chicken strips, and something that looks like bologna. Then there are cheese covered croutons. Finally there are some plain veggies: cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, and, if I’m lucky, some shredded carrots. Not a chick pea, sunflower seed, green pepper, sunchoke, or stalk of arugula in sight.

Then there are the dressings. They usually offer several, but all contain cheese or dairy, there ranch, bleu cheese, thousand island, and a “zesty Italian” with parmesan. If I ask they’ll dig me up a little bottle of vinegar to drizzle over the top of my iceberg salad.

While my co-workers dig into huge platters of “surf and turf” (otherwise known as the eating-one-animal-per-meal-just-ain’t-enough platter) I’m miserable with my sad and unsatisfying salad. Of course everyone else got the salad bar too, and they’ve heaped their plates with pasta salad and cheese cubes. Then my resentment increases ten-fold each time one of my companions nudges me and says “This is the best salad bar I’ve ever seen! Isn’t it great?”

Unfortunately through the years I’ve found that I can’t always dictate where my work decides to hold lunch meetings. I’ve had to come up with a work around instead. Here’s my method. If I know ahead of time we’re going to the restaurant, I bring along a tiny Tupperware of my own salad dressing—for me it’s Amy’s Goddess. I can also pack a little baggie of chickpeas and pumpkin seeds. Whatever you like on your salad but you know they don’t have can be tucked into a purse (or if you’re a guy I would suggest an innocent looking gift bag, so the next time someone gives you a gift in one, save it).

If you don’t know ahead of time that you’re going to a place where you’ll have trouble eating, then you shouldn’t feel the least bit ashamed to skip the salad bar and ask your waiter if they can make something vegan for you. Maybe pasta marinara, hold the cheese, or perhaps the dreaded steamed vegetable plate. Also ask if they have any fresh fruit in the kitchen—sometimes they, especially if they have a breakfast bar in the morning, do but it might not be on the menu. It doesn’t exactly sound ideal, but if you have something to eat it might cut down on the crankiness. Of course this is also one of those situations where that stash of vegan energy bars in your desk drawer at work comes in really handy too.

I hope these tips help you survive salad bars. I think the thing that bothers me most about this situation is that I try to show people how simple, flavorful and inspired vegan foods can be. But to someone uneducated on veganism my inability to eat at a salad bar makes my diet and lifestyle seem difficult, boring, and joyless. If I’m able to sneak my bring-your-own additions onto my plate then I’m able to eat something that looks and smells good, and more importantly something satisfying that I enjoy, while around non-vegans.

Having a Plan

Something has been nagging at the corner of my mind lately, and it is this: the adjectives we use to describe people who do things we don’t like. Recently I got into a heated discussion where the words “lazy” and “selfish” were lobbed at vegans who failed to achieve perfection in certain ways. My first thought was “Whoa, if some vegans are calling other vegans lazy and selfish, what are they saying about the average non-vegan out there?” But I don’t know the answer to that one, I was too busy insisting I’m not really lazy and selfish.

Not to rehash all that, instead I want to talk about the vegans who slip up or the vegetarians who want to be vegan but can’t seem to make the leap. Is this because they’re lazy and selfish? I don’t think so. I mean, c’mon, I can be pretty lazy and selfish myself, but I keep a vegan kitchen. The main way I prevent slip ups is having a plan. Yeah, seriously, when the going gets tough I don’t fall back on my moral self-righteousness, I don’t crack out a dvd of Earthlings, when the going gets tough I fall back on two things, habit and planning.

When my fellow vegans confide to me that they ate something non-vegan it usually falls into three categories. The first is accident: “The waiter told me that the soup was vegan, but this thing floating in it seems to be bacon.” The second category is hormonal cravings, and this is mostly women but sometimes even happens to men, but typically it’s: “I had terrible PMS and all I could think about was chocolate but I was stuck at the office and the only chocolate in the vending machine was a Milky Way Bar.” The third type is stress/depression/tragedy eating which goes like this: “I was totally vegan for months but then my grandmother died and I went to the funeral and afterwards they were serving all the foods she used to make and I ate them all.” These confessions are usually accompanied by a lot of self-recrimination or even hand-wringing. The vegans here often ask themselves why they can’t be more perfect, why they keep messing up when others don’t.

So the first aspect of this is habit—when things aren’t stressful and overwhelming, get into the habit of eating vegan foods. This should help cut down on the cravings for non-vegan foods, and also help you learn where you can find vegan foods in a pinch. Sorry, it doesn’t always totally eliminate cravings, but it certainly helps.

Habit helps with the accidental non-vegan foods too, because we learn which restaurants serve foods we can eat and keep going to those places. We might also just develop a habit of asking the waiter specific questions instead of “is this vegan?” Sometimes people don’t know precisely what vegan means so asking “is the broth a meat broth?” might bring a more accurate answer.

Working on forming new habits is especially helpful for recovering junk food junkies. If your taste buds are accustomed to white flour, tons of sugar, and a greasy slab of fried animal flesh, those are the things you’re going to reach for when your brain is on auto-pilot. However, if you go through the sometimes painful process of realigning your taste buds to crisp juicy apples, whole grain crackers, veggie sandwiches, and carrot sticks there’s a good chance you’ll eventually start to just automatically reach for those foods instead. But just like learning piano, learning healthy vegan eating takes practice. And it isn’t always fun when your brain is screaming “ice cream” to bite into an apple instead. It can be hard work, but eventually it does become second nature.

The second aspect is planning. For me this means trying to keep a couple of vegan energy bars (yes, with chocolate in them) in my desk drawer at work so if I am stuck working late or have an intense craving I have something on hand. This is also good from a nutritional standpoint too, because while energy bars aren’t perfect they have to beat whatever junky stuff I could find in vending machines.

This kind of planning especially comes in handy when you’re going through a really tough time, like the funeral of a loved one, or even happy stress like traveling to and participating in your sister’s wedding. During those stressful times we tend to skip meals, so the hunger combined with stress, combined with an urge for “comfort foods” means we’ll be especially tempted by the non-vegan foods we once loved. However if we go into it knowing that we can plan. We can tuck a box of vegan “shells and chreese” into our luggage for a late night indulgence, we can check listings of vegan and vegetarian restaurants online, as well as regular restaurants with vegan options before we travel to an unfamiliar location. We can stash a few of those energy bars in our coat pockets just in case.

We also have to remind ourselves why this is important. It’s not because we’re selfish, stupid, or lazy that we forget, it’s because like everyone else we’re busy, pulled in nine or ten different directions, stressed, tired, etc. It’s hard to keep in mind every single day the things that after all are so carefully hidden from us. Some people even wear something to remind themselves about the animals when they’re least likely to think of them, like working late and starving, or at a party. Other people will periodically watch a video or visit a sanctuary to keep the connection fresh in their minds. There’s no wrong way, so long as it works for you. The trick is to find a way to remember that the tasty-looking slice of cheesecake also meant suffering to the cows (for the milk and cheese) and to the chickens (for the eggs). One friend of mine keeps the photographs of sanctuary animals she is sponsoring in her wallet. This can keep her reasons for being vegan close at hand and also gives her a pick-me-up on a rough day. Just looking at those rescued animals, knowing they are safe and fed and cared for can go a long way.

Hyper-pigmentation

I think I'm angry, maybe about a lot of things, maybe about the debates last night.

So it's probably better not to get too much into that one at this point.

For something completely different, let's talk about our hyper-pigmented cats.

What's a hyper-pigmented cat you ask?

Why that would be a cat, like my Obi, who is completely black, has a black nose, black paw pads, and black "eyeliner" around his eyes. His lips and some of his gums are black too, though his tongue and the inside of his mouth are pink.

Anyone involved for some years in cat rescue will find themselves at some point asking "What's up with the black cats?"

Here's what's up with the black cats:
*They have lower adoption rates than other cats
*Anecdotally they are singled out for acts of violence
*Traditionally they are considered bad luck

I know, can you believe it? Those of us who share our homes with black cats know how perfect and lovable they are, so we can't believe they have such a bad time of it.

But there's more than this up with the black cats.

Consider that in rural areas grey and brown tabby cats make up the majority of feral colonies, and that's easy to explain, their stripes hide them from predators. But in urban areas black cats and black and white cats start to dominate the colonies. When I've talked with long-time feeders about starting TNR for their colonies so often they've said "This started out with a tabby, a calico, and an orange cat, but now we've got so many black cats here."

From a logical viewpoint this shouldn't be an evolutionary advantage to urban cats. Being black helps them blend in with roads, which increases their chances of getting killed by cars. Being black decreases the hand outs they might get from sympathetic humans. Yet, after a few generations, black cats will be the most plentiful.

And finally we have an answer. New genetic research has demonstrated that the genes for hyper-pigmentation (I believe this is a case where one such gene produces a black and white cat and two produce an all black cat) also provide a genetic resistance against viruses. In urban areas where cat colonies might be crowded viruses are a larger threat than predators.

I love stuff like this.

Go home and hug a black cat!

Carnival Against Vivisection

Even before I saw Pattrice's post calling on us to write about vivisection, the topic was in my mind. Lately I've been having terrible nightmares about vivisection. In these vivid dreams I’d find animals I know and love strapped into horrible machines or shut sick in tiny cages in labs, and always for some reason I couldn’t free them, I couldn’t get them out. I’d wake up in a sweat and check on everyone to make sure they were all ok.

Vivisection as a topic wasn’t one I really understood or even thought about when I first became vegetarian, but five years later I found myself working as a researcher at an animal group, in their anti-vivisection department. It was a crash course in the truly unimaginable. The sickest, weirdest, most heinous, most painful things you could never dream up, someone out there is doing them to animals and being paid by the government to do so.

I quickly learned that all the regulations out there which we believe protect animals, like the animal welfare act, or internal review committees at universities, these things protect the researchers but not the animals. I read report after report where the reviewers expressed concern about excessive pain in the animals, but rubber stamped it anyway.

Another thing I learned, which was quite shocking to me, was that drug companies would conduct experiments on many different types of animals but bury any results negative to the drug. Since species differ, many species could take a certain drug with no ill effect, and we know that animal experiments don’t reliably predict side effects in humans. However, if you are using animal experiments to try to prove your products safe, it’s amazing to me that they would know some animals had birth defects, some animals had convulsions, some died, and they just didn’t publish those results and only used the experiments where the animals were fine.

At this very same time one of my closest friends since childhood earned her PhD in biochemistry. She does not experiment on animals incidentally. Her line of work began with an interest in protecting plant crops from fungal disease. But she, as a capital-S Scientist, always defended “basic research” to me. She thought that people should be able to cut open the brains of cats while they were still alive for no other reason than seeing what would happen. She felt research got corrupted when it had a pre-determined goal.

This same friend also told me how she would pursue grants from the government emphasizing how her own basic research might one day cure disease, though in actuality she told me there was really no connection. It was a game they had to play to get funding for their work.

I’m going to drift away from that story line to go back to something Pattrice said, she connected vivisection to child abuse. To many this might be a shocking comparison, but there are so many ways in which it rings true. It is the complete destructive domination of the smaller, weaker being by the bigger stronger one. It is a complete betrayal of trust in the animal who is tame, trusting of people, forced to cooperate in their own use and disposal. And on another level, as someone who has survived abuse, I get a flash of that cold eye, that someone even in doing terrible things, is somehow observing, measuring pain, fascinated with watching and studying their damage on another being.

And there you are, helpless, and all your existence is pain, and you don’t even comprehend why or how, or that there is anything else in the entire world. Amazingly, somewhere in the world, someone is experimenting on animals to try to develop a drug that will make children forget incidents of sexual abuse, or at least make those memories less vivid. Because it’s not about owning your own body, owning your own life, owning your own memories, and finding your own peace, it’s about developing, marketing and selling for profit a pill that someone can swallow to presumably avoid the hard work of living and healing. A pill so you don’t have to go to the therapist. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want any child to hurt or suffer, I just don’t believe a pill fixes that.

My friend, the bio-chemist, is experiencing some chinks in her scientific armor. She said she thinks it’s wrong to force animals to smoke so the tobacco companies can try to disprove what we all know that smoking is bad for you and everyone should quit right now.

But it’s worse than that. We can and do find life-saving cures and information from studying our own population and our own genes. However, we continue to experiment on animals to seek cures to diseases we already know how to prevent. Most lung cancer is caused by smoking, other cases are caused by other environmental factors/exposures, and the remaining ones have a genetic origin. But people don’t stop smoking so we torture mice, and cats, and dogs, and monkeys and on and on. We know that exercise, low-fat diets, and preferably veganism will prevent the majority of non-congenital heart disease. But we want to eat burgers and fries coated in trans-fats so we torture animals.

I’m going to die some day. It might be a lot sooner than I’d like. I can’t prevent every risk in the world. I can’t know what I can’t know, like what day not to go downtown, or when I should call in sick instead of getting in my car. I don’t know how much time I have, but I want that time to count somehow.

Vivisection is so mixed up in our lives. Because of US law any medications we take were tested on animals at some time. Most were developed from human-based leads, looking at populations, isolating and concentrating substances from herbal remedies, etc. Many “new” drugs are found when someone is taking something for another reason but finds it also relieves another condition, and then the scientists scramble to find out why and exactly what ingredient does what. But it’s almost impossible to actually see all the vivisection around us and also nearly impossible to get away from it.

Edit: Sorry, I meant to add that conclusion that we can choose to buy products that were not tested on animals obviously. Even when we avoid prescription medications, buy the bunny-hugger toothpaste and cleanser, our tax dollars still fund vivisection. I'm not usually one to suggest legislative solutions to animal issues, but in the case of vivisection working to reform laws that require animal testing (but weirdly enough no human cell culture testing) would be a good start.

Some Musings After a Long Silence

Last night I raced home from work and took my dogs out for a walk. Along with me I toted a canvas grocery bag with cat food, bio-degradable dog-doo bags, spoons, and all the litter I picked up on the way (side note here--I pick up so many liquor bottles on my daily walks that anyone going through my recycling would think I have a serious drinking problem).

As we walked last night Nikita suddenly froze and then darted to my side, Kyra followed. Both dogs were pointing at the forlorn body of a baby squirrel. He was on his back, his nose was bloody, presumably injured when he fell from a nest high in the trees. I froze for a moment, the little squirrel started moving. Then the feral cats seemed to get impatient for my arrival and ventured out to find us. So there I was with an injured baby squirrel and two dogs and two cats surrounding him. I dumped out the contents of my bag and grabbed the little squirrel, as he fought and cried out and put him in the bottom of my bag.

That's when I saw the two other baby squirrels, who couldn't so much walk as slowly crawl, trying to get away unnoticed. So I scooped them up too. One had a scratch on his side, and the other appeared to be uninjured, but with cats around I couldn't just leave them there.

Once back at the house (note: I did go back and retrieve all the contents of my bag--don't think I littered) I called trying to find some help for the squirrels. In the end our best solution was to take them to Washington Humane who would try to keep them warm and alive until the wildlife rehabber opened in the morning.

Here I am, hoping they're ok, but too afraid they aren't to pick up the phone and call, in case they aren't. I wish I could be better prepared for events like these, but I'm not qualified to treat injured baby squirrels.

And at the house I have five kittens with the momma cat, who need homes. All tame, sociable, loving and totally homeless and at the mercy of the world. Like we weren't crowded and overwhelmed enough. (incidentally, if you're interested in a kitten in the DC area or know anyone who is, please get in touch with me)

The animals who need help never stop coming I suppose. There's something about the way a lost and terrified baby animal looks at you--if you've done much rescue you'll know what I mean. There's that dopey out of it look, which would be shock, the last bit of fight in them that is going to warn you of a bite or a scratch at least if you reach for them, and then also something of an appeal, a hope that just maybe you'll help them instead of eating them. I don't know how to describe it really, it just totally breaks your heart, the will to live combined with total innocence and helplessness.

I really wonder how anyone could see that and ever do anything to harm an animal. I wonder how people could not be moved to change their lives. Isn't this something that grabs you by the heart and forces you to action?

But it doesn't, does it? A man walked by us as I tried to figure out how to keep the cats back and grab up the little squirrel. "The squirrel is hurt," I called out to him, "do you have anything I could cover him with? A paper towel? A kleenex? Anything?" He shot me a look of total disgust and walked on. I picked up the little squirrels with my hands. I thought of the time I've had to help birds and people have said "You touched the bird? Birds are so filthy?" Hands wash but consciences don't, I suppose.

Update: Ok, I worked up the courage to call the rehabber and check on the squirrels and all of them are going to make it. The one with the bloody nose is fine, but the one with the scratch on her side will need some extra recovery time. They said that the squirrels were all dehydrated and it's possible that something happened to the mother and they ventured out of the nest looking for food and fell. They are only four weeks old, the poor baby squirrels.