Book Description

For many years, elephants have been exhibited in zoos and parks all over the world.This is the true story of how they were cared for, handled, and trained during the time the author worked as an elephant keeper at the San Diego Wild Animal Park.For the first time, the public can get a behind the scenes look at the daily life of captive elephants. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Touching but funny
I think it's hilarious that, in defending her father against Mr. Whitt's crticism of his poor grammar and spelling, Ms. Ross-Ryan uses words and grammar that are unrecognizable as English and do, indeed, make her father look like a literary genius. The apple really does not fall far from the tree.

Congratulations to author for speaking out
I found this book to be nothing short of a gripping and devestating account of the dilemma facing captive elephants and their keepers. Ryan writes out of highly personal convinction and candor. The result is an intimate and revealing memoir I found difficult to put down. This is not a comprehensive guide to elephant captivity or training methods and should not be purchased as such. Instead, it should be read as one man's experience and eventual confrontation with a sad and pervasive mentality surrounding treatment of captive animals. Ryan succeeds in making us (those of us with compassion for our fellow animals) frustrated, horrified and desperate to believe in an alternative to violent methods of keeping elephants.

My hearty congratulations to the author for his courage. Essential reading for policy makers, animal keepers and those frequenting zoos. There must be a better way!

Daniel Ferguson
Montreal, Canada

A True Story AboutWhat Mistreated Elephants go through.
First off I would like to say to Mr. Mark Witt, that reveiw was very harsh considering all the hard labor my Father went throughto write this book! He deserves a A (insted of a B!)I'm sure that if u were to write a book it would not be perfect either! Anyways i belive this book is the cold hard truth about what these animals go through. I would definatly recomend this to people that are intersted in this area.

Great Story barely overcomes high price and poor grammer
As an Animal Rights activist, I ordered this book with greatenthusiasm, thinking that I would get a lot of first hand informationabout how animals are trained and treated in the zoo and circus industries.My first impression of "Keepers of the Ark" was when I got the envelope in the mail and thought, "that's an awfully small book for ..[the price]." Especially for a paperback!

After reading the book I can honestly say that it was informative, enlightening, and even enjoyable.But I was also taken aback at how lousy the editing was!There were spelling errors, grammar errors, run on sentences, just like as if it was taken directly from someone's notebook with no editing what so ever.Considering that the author really lays into the management people above him while he worked in the WAP for not having any college degrees (while he did), it rings as being pretty hypocritical that the published work looks so bad from the grammar standpoint.

And the book really is too expensive for a 180+ page paperback.

The author gets B, and the publisher a D-.

I would suggest checking it out from the library instead of buying it.

A behind the scenes look at elephant training and captivity
This books reveals what most people -- who have ever cared to ask -- know what is involved in keeping and maintaining elephants in captivity.

This author's behind the scenes look at the inherent cruelty involved in most elephant related training practices is especially applicable when elephants are trained for rides and circus type acts (even if it is not called a circus).

I believe that anyone who frequents zoos or circuses needs to read this book to make a more informed decision on the PR campaigns and practices they are supporting by buying tickets for admission.

We are told about the education and conservation that they purport to support, but is this true for the mass majority of them?

Read it and really find out "When Elephants Weep" ... Read more

Book Description

This book criticizes the common belief that we are entitled to exploit animals for our benefit because they are not as rational as people. After discussing the moral (in)significance of reason in general, the author proceeds to develop a clear, commonsensical conception of what "animal rights" is about and why everyday morality points toward the liberation of animals as the next logical step in Western moral progress. The book evaluates criticisms of animal rights that have appeared in recent philosophical literature and explains the consequences of animal liberation for our diet, science, and treatment of the environment.

The issue of animal rights has become of increasing philosophical and popular importance over the past decade. Morals. Reason, and Animals is the first extensive, second-generation contribution to this debate. Focusing exclusively on the fundamental philosophical issues, Sapontzis both undermines the arguments that have been raised against animal rights and constructs a rebuttal that avoids the pitfalls encountered by earlier defenses. ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (3)

Not worth a second look
I am usually very conservative about giving very high or very low ratings, but this book surely deserves it more than anything else I've read. I got this book thinking that it would be a lovely introduction to some reasonable explanations for becoming vegetarian. Boy, was I wrong. Supposedly, this book gives the two sides of the vegetarian debate (i.e. hippies and meat industry moguls) a chance to meet and talk about the differing reasons they believe they are right. It is a wonderful idea which loses everything in the execution. In the entire first half of the book (whose second half I declined to read) there were all of two footnotes. Not a single claim of either side's evidence had any substantial (read, non-partial) support. This book is aimed at idiots who cannot tell the difference between what other idiots say and a well-thought out argument citing researched statistics. Unfortunately, neither side was up to the task of actually founding their arguments in anything other than propaganda. Naturally, as a result we end up with the most biased and unfounded set of arguments as possible. No wonder so many people steer clear of this argument--with twats such as these authors on either side, I would too (that is, if I didn't already know which side is right).

terrifying account of the dangers of anthropocentrism
This is a horribly depressing book for anyone who cares about the future of this planet. In one of the most optimistic essays, it's argued that the world faces 3 choices: grow GM crops en masse, destroy the world's remaining wildlife, or convert the entire population of the US to veganism. It's then pointed out that only 0.2% of American's are currently vegan. Another essay points out, even more terrifyingly, that third world countries are seeking to emaulate western patterns of meat consumption, with all the horrifying consequences this has for their environments and spiritual lives. Other essays provoke a Becketian laughter at the absurdity of the human condition; in one it's pointed out that the US spends more on weight loss products than any other nation does on food. The reasons for this anomaly are pointed out elsewhere; massive subsidies for the agribusiness industry which produce the illusion of "cheap" meat and global trade agreements that prevent countries from introducing animal welfare laws. The only possible cause for optimism is the hope that this book's ideas may be widely dissiminated and cause people to realise the danger that eating meat poses to their own health and to the future of the planet.

Well written multidisciplinary overview
This book gives an interesting multidisciplinary overview of the food / environmental / wealth problems we're facing which will probably only exacerbate, and possible solutions -- including a proponent of GenMod crops. No, this book isn't some extremist book stating "let's all become vegetarian!" (as the title may suggest), nor does it seriously draw on "sentimental" arguments. I feel this book makes us reflect on the whole issue, leaving us to decide ourselves. Recommended for anyone interested in "why it is necessary to reduce meat consumption" and a good overview anyway for the current state of affairs in this field. ... Read more

Book Description

Throughout history humans have used non-human animals in many different ways to ensure the success of their survival and throughout history there have been differing opinions about how and when animals should be used for satisfying human needs. Some argue that we should no longer use animals in ways that seem to exploit them. Others argue this is okay as long as the animals aren't hurt. Students can explore the different issues of animal rights and animal welfare in this four-volume set written at the fourth and fifth grade reading levels. ... Read more

Book Description

This book exposes the track record of deceit, fraud and terrorism of animal rights groups.It is a hard-hitting account of the individuals and organizations that will go to any lengths to stop the human use of animals for food, clothing, medical testing, entertainment and pets.It is must reading for every animal lover. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Flawed, manpulative reasoning.
This book is highly flawed and manipulative. Instead of attacking the reasoning behind animal rights as a philosophy, Oliver chooses to attack extreme members of animal rights groups in an attempt to somehow discredit the movement. Pointing out the most extreme members of any movement as a method of attack is a trick, and not a valid basis for any moral decision. For instance, if Hitler was a believer in animal rights, he also claimed to love children. Should that mean we should deny rights and protection to children, because an evil man (or group) promoted it as a positive idea? It's a ridiculous argument. Positive, loving philosophies do not lose their strength because extreme individuals happen to adopt them and then proceed to ignore the values of compassion and love which they are based.

If the Third Reich had sympathies towards animal rights, then so did Gandhi, Nobel Peace Prize winner Albert Schweitzer, Einstein, Alice Walker, Jimmy Stewart, Mark Twain, Pythagoras, Leo Tolstoy, Thoreau, Charles Dickens, Lewis Carroll, C.S. Lewis, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Saint Francis of Assisi as well as many others.

Animal rights is not anti-human. To love one thing is not to cancel out love for another. When we understand this perhaps we will aquire some peace in the world. To extend our love and compassion to all creatures (and that includes humans of course) can only stregthen in us the best of human nature. It is no benefit for us to indulge our every desire at the expense of another creature's suffering. Hurting animals may make our lives easier, fulfill our basest desires, and even extend our lives, but in the end it robs of us of what is most important in being human - love, compassion, respect, and the privilege of using our strength to protect and love all the weak. This is honor.

It is man's sympathy with all creatures that first makes him truly a man. -- Albert Schweitzer

A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security." --Albert Einstein

You do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behavior. Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character. --George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Gandhi

Releasing the Truth about Animal Rights Humaniacs
I found this to be an extremely informative book. This was not just based on the authors opinions. He offered facts to back up his information. Every person donating money to an animal rights group should read this and SEE where their money is really going. Bravo to Daniel Oliver for such an eye opener to the groups that the FBI now classifies as our home grown terrorist.

The truth about "animal rights"
At last, someone who is not afraid to tear the mask of hypocrisy. Vaccinated humans have no right to deny vaccines from others. Well-fed people have no right to deny food from others. Medical experimentation on animals is good. Adulation of animals as sacred cows is a religious perversion. If medical students will be forbidden to practice on animals, we'll either have bad physicians or practitioners that have studied their trade on humans. The first animal rights laws were enacted in the Third Reich by the Prussian minister. The rationale was that most animals have more rights than most people. The goody-goodies that have tired of fighting for human rights and have taken leave of their senses should remember that Einstein was not a vegetarian, Hitler was. "The Inhumane Crusade" is a valuable book for people who still value human life above the pseudo- and quasi-rights of rats, cockroaches, and the malaria plasmodium.

Horrible!
How can a man so self concerned write a book concerning the rights of others?

A Ray of Truth in a Sea of Rhetoric
This book is packed with valuable facts and references whereby the truth-seeking individual can counterbalance the cultish propaganda which crowds bookshelves on the subject of animal rights and ethical treatment of animals. The honesty and brevity of the writing style is therefore refreshing and the author avoids rhetorical claims and emotional hyperbole, backing his statements at every step. It may not be what special interest groups want to hear, and their rantings, chantings and screeching wails remind one of the saying "The truth shall set you free! (But first it shall (or may), er, well..upset you!) This book only upsets those who advocate open discussion, on terms that such discussion agrees with their viewpoint. I would heartily recommend this book to journalists, researchers, animal interests advocates and owners, and especially to anyone who considers the value of their philanthropy seriously and who really wants to help animals. Sadly, many donated dollars do not go to animals, but to pay six figure salaries and perks for organization directors, and for outrageous and costly publicity and media stunts and promos. These and other interesting facts about the AR movement are exposed in Animal Rights, The Inhumane Crusade, by Daniel T. Oliver, a must for every animal and pet owners bookshelf. ... Read more

Book Description

This book is a must for all collections in German history and animal rights. It is a deep and profound reflection on the complex and perplexing ways that animals can shape human culture and politics.--Choice, May 2001 ... Read more

Reviews (2)

A Laudable Project, Poorly Executed
Unfortunately, this beautifully written, morally reflective book was inadequately researched. Many of the author's anecdotes were simply culled from secondary sources (some of questionable reliability), and the book even contains lengthy sections of entirely unfootnoted assertions. Sax seems unaware of major recent work on Nazi Germany of direct relevance to the issues he addresses - Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men," Ian Kershaw's "Hitler Myth", Paul Weindling's "Health, Race and German Politics" and Kurt Schleunes', "A Twisted Road to Auschwitz" are all missing from his bibliography. As a result, his book unfortunately adds little to contemporary scholarly understanding of the Nazi regime, despite the novelty and importance of his initial questions.

Valuable insight into the Nazi world view
In this useful and interesting book, Sax discusses the treatment of animals in the Third Reich, but the focus is broader than that; he also explores the way that metaphors from the animal kingdom became an important way of expressing the Nazi world view. In the twisted ideology of the Third Reich, there was no important differentiation between "human" and "animal" life. Instead, the Nazis tended to look on the world as a continuum. The highest position on the continuum belonged to healthy humans the "Aryan race." Animals could be found lower down on that continuum, while lower still were the humans who were considered inferior because of their racial identity or mental handicaps. As Sax put it in the introductory material, "In their nihilistic perspective the important distinction was not between "humans" and "aniimals" .... It was between victor and vanquished, between master and slave. The underlying paradigm was ... that of predator and prey." This attitude reflected the viewpoint in National Socialism that depicted nature as "a harsh and implacable power," demanding obedience. ... Read more

Book Description

This book is about one of the most extraordinary phenomena of our times, one which raises fundamental questions about the nature of altruism, about the character of humankind, about a new political agenda and about the relationship of humans with the rest of nature. This phenomenon is the attention paid to the welfare of nonhuman animals and their rights or interests. In the century since Darwin, humankind have clung to the notion that they are entirely different from and morally superior to all other species. This modern idea is in sharp contrast to ancient times when, the evidence shows, early humans respected animals and early religions saw them as divine manifestations. The relationship of humankind to other species is the focus of this work. An historical overview is first presented, crossing many cultures and eras. The ethics of animal exploitation and "pain-ism" are next covered, followed by an exploration of the science of animal welfare. How the political debate over animal welfare has developed and its potential for changing politicians' attitudes and behavior are the subjects of the concluding chapter. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

An insightful book on animal rights (AR) by a pioneer of AR
The author Richard Ryder is well known in animal protection circles as a successful campaigner politically and as the creator of the notion of "speciesism", a term he introduced to describe the universaloppression of the other animals by the human species.The Political Animalis his latest book and is an overview of the history of the human-nonhumanrelationship, its ethics, the science of animal welfare and the politicalcampaign.

Ryder, as a pioneer of the modern animal rights movement, is inan almost unique position in being able to write about all its aspects,European as well as American, scientific, political as well asphilosophical.He is an activist in all these arenas.In the book, hedescribes how he stimulated the scientific study of animals, achieveddirect contacts with influential politicians and revealed forgotten aspectsof the history of the animal reform movement.Wearing his philosophicalhat he proposes a moral code that is applicable not only in human to animalrelationships, but also in human to human interactions.Briefly, hecontends that we have a moral duty to relieve the pain and distress ofothers, regardless of their race, sex or species, with priority being givento the individual who is suffering most (i.e. the "painient"). He calls his position "painism".

This is a short, concise andinsightful book on various important aspects of the subject of animalrights and protection - an issue that is likely to be far more conspicuousin the politics of the new millennium. ... Read more

Book Description

Do animals have moral rights? In contrast to the philosophical gurus of the animal rights movement, whose opinion has held moral sway in recent years, Peter Carruthers here claims that they do not. He explores a variety of moral theories, arguing that animals lack direct moral significance. This provocative but judiciously argued book will appeal to all those interested in animal rights, whatever their initial standpoint. It will also serve as a lively introduction to ethics, demonstrating why theoretical issues in ethics actually matter. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

A rejection of animal rights according to contractualism
Carruthers arrives at a conclusion which a lot of people will not like, while a lot of others will be satisfied: carefully arguing with precise logic on the basis of Rawls's contractualism, Carruthers concludes that animals cannot have rights. An appreciation of this kind of book depends a lot on the reader's initial standpoint in the matter, but the least one can say is that the book is well written, even if one doesn't share the author's opinion. However, "The animals issue" would have been better and more credible if the author had left out his last chapter, in which he hypothesizes that animals do not have consciousness. ... Read more

Book Description

This book, presented by a skilled animal communicator and spiritual healer, gifts the clarity and perspective of the animals' viewpoints on dying, death, and euthanasia, to loving care-persons wanting to make conscious decisions involving the lives of animal companions entrusted to them, thereby minimizing grief and dispelling doubt. Told from the perspective of the author's life experiences and loving stories from the animals, the basic message of the book is one of love everlasting, eternal and infinite spirits in finite bodies; and that the correct knowing and correct action for the well-being of our beloved animal friends will come from the compassion and mercy of a loving heart. The book includes processes to connect with this knowing, to help guide. ... Read more

Book Description

Among the more significant developments of the twentieth century, the widespread attention given to "rights issues" must surely justify ranking it somewhere near the top. Never before has the issue of rights attracted such a wide audience or stirred so much controversy. Until very recently "rights" were traditionally recognized as attributable only to humans. Today, we increasingly are hearing a call to extend "rights" to the nonhuman animal and, on occasion, to the environment.

In this book, James B. Reichmann, S.J., undertakes an investigation of the metaethical grounds of "rights" theory, with special focus on the controversial issue of whether creatures other than humans can and should be considered true subjects of "rights." He contends that before assigning rights to this or that individual or group, whether human or not, we need to be very clear about what it is we are assigning, to whom, and why.

The book argues forcefully that the various recent efforts to build a case supporting animal and environmental 'rights' fail in their quest, and that any such effort resting on a Darwinian evolutionary base is likewise condemned to fail. In furtherance of this claim the author first investigates life phenomena, followed by a detailed comparative study of knowing, communicating and doing, as these are observed in the human and the nonhuman animal. This in turn is followed by an overview of diverse views advanced by contemporary environmental ethicists and animal 'rights' advocates, including Peter Singer, Tom Regan, J. Baird Callicott, Laura Westra, and Don E. Marietta, Jr.

Representative though doubtless provocative conclusions drawn from this study include the claims that: (1) Classic Darwinian theory provides no admissable premise from which to derive a theory of inherent, inalienable rights. (2) No satisfactory explanation of the origin of rights and obligation can derive save from within the context of natural law theory. (3) The human person alone unqualifiedly possesses rights. (4) The view that vegetarianism is an ethical mandate is neither compatible with the Christian world view, nor philosophically sound. ... Read more