PLEASE NOTE:
Portions of this now amended Action Alert were based on representations made to VINE by the Green Mountain College Farm Manager, who led us to believe that he was speaking for the college. We have since learned that was not true and that some of his statements did not reflect the official college position. We sincerely regret any hard feelings caused by that misunderstanding. We encourage the college community to revisit any decisions that it may have made based on inaccurate information
Specifically, we have since learned that the college asserts that (a) killing Bill and Lou would be best for them, and (b) killing Bill and Lou would be the “sustainable” thing to do, to keep them from wasting resources now that one of them is disabled. The college does intend to serve them as hamburger but does not see this as the primary motive for the slaughter.
Green Mountain College does still plan to kill Lou and Bill, and action is still needed.
Please see subsequent blog posts for details.
Green Mountain College is poised to kill two oxen named Bill and Lou who have served their college farm for ten long years. ACT NOW to prevent it!
Bill and Lou have been a working team of oxen at Green Mountain College in Poultney, VT for ten years. They were pressed into service by staff at Cerridwen Farm – the teaching farm on campus – to do everything from plowing fields to generating electricity. Over the years, they became so well loved that they’re even the profile picture for the farm’s Facebook page!
A few months ago, Lou became unable to be worked any longer. Bill won’t work with anyone else. Therefore, the college has concluded that both of them must be killed.
DEATH is their reward for 10 long years of hard work.
Yes, Green Mountain College has decided that Bill and Lou’s long lives of service should be rewarded by their slaughter – and for what? According to their own press releases, the school will get, at best, a couple of months of low-grade hamburger out of their bodies.
This is especially heartbreaking because they have an excellent home waiting for them.
VINE Sanctuary has offered to provide Bill and Lou with permanent homes. We have the ability and resources to care for them for the rest of their natural lives. Sadly, though, the college is determined to kill them instead.
Farm Manager Kenneth Mulder (with whip) working Bill and Lou
For ten years, they served the needs of those more powerful than they are.
Now it’s time to let them serve their own needs.
Please contact the folks at Green Mountain College and urge them to reconsider. It would be especially powerful for people from Vermont to contact them, and even more so for alumni to add their voices, so if you know someone from Vermont and/or Green Mountain College, please forward this notice to them as well. Feel free to use and/or modify the letter below, or write your own. Please send the letter to the following people:
Bill Throop Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs: throopw@greenmtn.edu
Kenneth Mulder Farm Manager, Research Associate & Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies: mulderk@greenmtn.edu (We no longer believe that letters to Farm Manager Mulder would be helpful.)
Dear Sir:
I am writing to urge you to allow Bill and Lou to live out the remainder of their natural lives, in peace and contentment, at VINE Sanctuary, a reputable organization which has offered to care for them.
Should you choose to reverse their death sentences, the rewards garnered by Green Mountain College will far exceed whatever paltry sum their slaughter would bring to the school.
Conversely, whatever small amount of cash would be made by killing them will be far outweighed by the negative press which will follow in the wake of their deaths. (We now know that economics is not the primary motive for the slaughter.
Bill and Lou have served your college well for ten long years. Students and faculty alike have expressed how much they care about these individuals. They deserve to be given the rest of their lives to live as they choose. Just because they are not human does not mean they do not care about their existence.
We will be watching to see what decision you make.
Sincerely,
NAME
Bill and Lou: Who lives, who dies, and why
By Marc Bekoff
Posted: 10/21/2012 01:00:00 AM MDT
Bill and Lou are two oxen who have lived and labored in obscurity for the past 10 years on the campus of a small college, Vermont Mountain College (VMC), in a small town, Poultney, in a small state. Recently, college officials announced that as a reward for their long years of service on the college’s working farm, Bill and Lou would be slaughtered and served as oxenburgers to students. They would serve as a lesson in sustainability and tradition.
So, why has the story about their impending slaughter rapidly attracted international attention? It’s because Bill and Lou are sentient, feeling individuals, with unique personalities, who are condemned to death because they are too old to work and there is a very simple humane alternative to their slaughter. VINE, a sanctuary near VMC, has offered to have them live there for free.
The case of Bill and Lou is not just of local interest. Our relationships with other animals are extremely challenging and paradoxical. Bill and Lou’s story is a perfect example of how nonhuman animals (animals) depend on the goodwill of human animals for their very lives. We are the most powerful force on Earth and every second of every day we’re making decisions about who lives and who dies. In Bill and Lou’s case people who have chosen to kill them argue that because they’re old and because they’ve been close and inseparable friends for so long when one dies the other would terribly miss their workmate and that would be too much for the survivor to handle. Lou has a recurring injury so some at VCM claim both of them should be killed at the same time. This decision is too convenient, fast, and daft. Would people do this to their companion dogs? Of course not. They would make sure the survivor would have the best life possible. So why do it to oxen?
Some at VMC also argue that sustainability is the main issue but the one-dimensional rhetoric of sustainability, as a colleague puts it, makes for a very weak and impersonal argument. It’s estimated Bill and Lou will produce about a ton of beef that otherwise would come from animals living on horrific factory farms also known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) that have well known and significant negative ecological impacts including air, water, and land pollution. Why use CAFO meat at all?
Because Bill and Lou will have to eat grass during their retirement years and growing and maintaining grass requires water, some say it’s best to kill them for reasons of ecological sustainability. It’s unlikely they will live very long even in a sanctuary. However, if they were healthy and could work they also would consume resources. Sure, they would also be helping to produce resources, but at some point all living beings will likely consume more than they produce for a wide variety of reasons. The sustainability argument is ludicrous because we’re talking about only two oxen, not a herd of oxen.
Some people argue that the resistance to killing Bill and Lou centers on one’s meal plan, be it carnivory, vegetarianism, or veganism, and that keeping them alive is really an argument for getting rid of animals in our diet. This isn’t necessarily so and it shifts the attention away from the fact that oxen are highly emotional and sentient beings and this is the unnecessary slaughter of two special animals. And it’s not euthanasia, or mercy killing, as some claim, because neither Bill nor Lou is suffering untreatable pain according to my sources.
Bill and Lou are a special case. They’ve worked selflessly for VMC, they are the best of friends, and they have the opportunity to live out their lives in peace and safety. They deserve to live after VMC decides they’re no longer useful. The decision to kill them shows how sentient beings are viewed as things, as mere property, to be used by humans for human ends. The details of their case, including that Bill and Lou are unique individuals, are lost in the muddle of impersonal ecological and philosophical arguments. Bill and Lou should be allowed to live a good life until death do them part, and then the survivor should be given the best life possible. Let the heartfelt compassion be used to do something for them as special friends.
Those who favor killing Bill and Lou also argue there is a strong educational lesson. However, think of how much could be learned by factoring deep compassion and their close friendship with VMC and for one another into the fate of Bill and Lou for whom a special case can easily be made. Showing flexibility would be a most valuable lesson. The world isn’t linear or black-and-white. There are many ethical lessons here for those who teach humane and compassionate education.
Cruelty can’t stand the spotlight that is why Bill and Lou, supposed friends of the college, individuals with unique stories, have touched the hearts of people around the world. Killing them is an unacceptable “thank you” for who they are and for all they have done.
Marc Bekoff is professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado Boulder, and author of numerous books on animal cognition, emotions, and protection. His homepage is marcbekoff.com and, with Jane Goodall,http://ethologicalethics.org
The only way out of our present system of violence, injustice, and war is radical compassion for all, which is the vegan ethic and way of living that we are all interconnected, and living our lives so as to show kindness and respect to all.
Let me know what I can do to help. It would be great if we could delay GMC from killing Bill and Lou.
We need more sustainable compassion – not sustainable destruction.
Lori Marino, PhD, Emory University
We need more sustainable compassion – not sustainable destruction.
Lori Marino, PhD, Emory University
Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology
Bill Throop, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Green Mountain College
Poultney, Vermont
Via email: throopw@greenmtn.edu
Dear Dr. Throop:
On behalf of United Poultry Concerns, I am writing, again, to urge you please to allow VINE Sanctuary to adopt Bill and Lou, the two oxen who have lived peacefully on your campus for ten years and are now elderly and ready for retirement. You have an opportunity to do the right thing by these animals, and I respectfully urge you to do it.
You do not need to expose them to the fear, panic and betrayal of a violent and terrifying death. You owe them a chance to be safe and happy and loved and responsibly cared for during the remaining years of their lives at one of the best and most respected sanctuaries in the country, VINE Sanctuary.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible with good news about Bill and Lou. I look forward to sharing your good news with friends and colleagues who are eager to know that Bill and Lou will be protected and respected by your school, and not be harmed. Please arrange their adoption by VINE Sanctuary.
Can you not see that compassion is a better education than killing?
Thank you for your consideration of Bill and Lou. Please give them a chance.
Sincerely,
Karen Davis, PhD, President
United Poultry Concerns
Machipongo, Virginia
Clarity–Bill and Lou were not worked “hard” for ten long years. Yes, they worked from time to time and they have pulled heavy loads, but in reality they spent the majority of their time grazing in the pastures and taking it easy. I think it is misleading to write “10 long years of hard work”, because that implies that Bill and Lou were worked near constantly or even daily for ten long years. This is just not the case.
The following is a response that I recently posted on Facebook.
I am a current Green Mountain College student and attended Friday’s philosophy forum. I also spoke with Beth Donovan for a good while after the forum. While only two current students and one alumni raised their hands to say they were opposed, a good number of students, including me, raised their hand to abstain and indicate that they are neither for or against the decision. I think a good number of students on campus, including me, are re-examining their dietary choices as a result of this issue. I have made great effort to examine this issue from all sides. This includes watching videos and reading a great deal of literature that has been posted on this Facebook page.
Information regarding Lou that was clarified at the forum:
It was not recommended by the veterinarian that Lou be put on pain medication, and this recommendation was NOT given because of any intention to send Lou to slaughter.
If Lou is put on pain medication, he will be more likely to injure himself further because he is a very heavy animal, medication may mask the fact that his leg is injured and as a result of these two factors, he will move more than he should.
I do think, given the circumstances of his size and injury, that it may be most humane to put Lou down rather than let him suffer or potentially injure himself further. The way in which this should be done is a secondary decision. I do not know enough about oxen to understand the depth of the psychological relationship between Bill and Lou — but my mom has a cat (Little Bit) and a dog (T.J.) that were best of friends — and when T.J. had to be put down due to kidney failure, Little Bit was depressed for months on end and would wait at the door for T.J. to come home. Only when my mom brought a new puppy (JoJo) home did Little Bit begin to come out of her depression and she now expresses what appears to be anxiety when JoJo leaves the house for a trip to the vet or groomer. Given the little I know about animal psychology, I do not know whether or not I support the decision of putting Bill and Lou down together, but I do support the ability of those who have worked with Bill and Lou for years to make this decision.
We are not all of one mind at Green Mountain College, and I hope my response makes it clear that I have personally put a lot of thought into this situation, and that I am not a heartless human being. Thank you.
I know some at the school view our collective mission as hateful or threatening to the college. However, if you can understand the paradigm within which we operate, our actions will appear a lot less so.
This paradigm is true equality, true liberation, true justice for all creatures, regardless of species. Through the lens of this paradigm, we see Bill and Lou as exactly equivalent, in all ways, to humans. They are individuals in their own right. They are “as good as” humans.
Thus, we see two PEOPLE — not two oxen, not two pets, not two farm animals — we see two PEOPLE, two INDIVIDUALS, whose lives are threatened.
Even if those at GMC who are pushing to kill Bill and Lou do not agree with this perspective, surely it casts this issue in a different light — surely it shows that we are not interfering monsters who for no reason at all wish to interfere with “your” business. In our book, this is about Bill and Lou’s business. THEIR rights. THEIR desire to live. THEIR RIGHT to live.
Thanks for posting, truly.
By now, I am certain, you will have received an incredible number of pleas to grant Bill and Lou clemency. Of course, it is noteworthy to mention that neither one has ever committed a crime, quite the contrary, both have been hard–if not dedicated–workers at Green Mountain College for a decade. The death sentence Bill and Lou are facing would not be something you would ever decree on any other loyal, faithfully committed member of your faculty. We live in a day and age where humanity and compassion overrule greed and indifference. Why not set an example for the students you proudly educate and empower to contribute in a way that allows not only personal growth but also self sufficiency, perhaps even prosperity, and is of benefit to our society as a whole?
I urge to demonstrate to your students (and the world) kindness, understanding and acknowledgement that animals like Bill and Lou are sentient creatures. Please do not move forward with this execution and allow them to enjoy the rest of their lives in a retirement community, namely, the Vine Sanctuary, set up to care for their wellbeing just like you and your colleagues would wish to be cared for once you have reached a certain–dare I say, less useful?–stage of your lives.
Kind regards (naturally),
Gabrielle Allen
Littleton, Colorado
Please, demonstrate to your students compassion, love, kindness towards all animals and foremost Bill and Lou. I implore you, please do not move forward with the execution and allow them to live their lives in retirement for the sake of God and us who speak for them.
Thank you for your remarks, which are commendably honest and open. I truly appreciate your clarifications and your motives. It’s obvious to me that you are FAR from heartless.
May I, with all due respect, ask two questions?
First, I’m confused by what you mean when you write “put Lou down” and “putting Bill and Lou down.”
Are you speaking of what is commonly known as euthanasia? Commonly speaking, euthanasia is when a veterinarian is asked to put one’s beloved animal friend as gently and quietly as possible out of misery by means of a chemical injection. The term euthanasia applies, I believe, only when an animal’s guardians make the painful decision that his illness or injury is beyond recovery and is causing him unremitting suffering (mental and physical). The guardians of an animal who is euthanized are usually with their friend right to his last breath, and their parting is emotionally painful. The guardians often bury their loved one’s body (or cremated ashes) in a special spot, which they mark, and perform a ceremony honoring his life. In many ways, it’s no different than saying goodbye to a loved human family member.
Or are you speaking of what is commonly referred to as slaughter? As we know, slaughter involves stunning an animal with a blow to the forehead, hanging him upside down, slicing his throat, and, after his blood drains, dismembering him — for the purpose of eating his carcass? (Muslim halal and Jewish kosher slaughter both skip the stunning for religious reasons.) The ideal slaughtered animal is healthy instead of ill, plump instead of skinny, and isn’t so old that the texture of his flesh is stringy and tough. (I read somewhere that prime candidates for slaughter are three years old or younger.)
Truly, I’m not trying to be graphic; I’m simply aiming to use as precise language as possible — and am trying to avoid employing euphemisms — like “put down,” which can mask the differences in motives, methods, and end results between euthanasia and slaughter. The former I don’t call killing, the latter I do.
And here’s my second question: When you write “I think a good number of students on campus, including me, are re-examining their dietary choices as a result of this issue” — which sounds like a good thing! — do you mean re-examining with the idea of refraining from eating factory-farmed animals and instead eating only animals raised on small farms? Or do you mean eating fewer animals? Or do you mean you now have the new goal of ultimately eliminating animals from your diet altogether?
I hope you feel my queries are impelled by a kind heart and a sincere interest in your answers, just as I felt only kindness and sincerity guiding your comments. Thank you again.
Please find it in your hearts to make an exception in this case. Their lives are truly depending on you.
Unless anyone else is moving on this, I’ve actually talked to an attorney. I don’t know if there’s anything legal we can do, but have at least contacted someone for guidance. I am open to having a conversation with you that my help me have a more fruitful conversation with the attorney tomorrow.
An attorney can certainly articulate what we’ve all said up to this point in a letter to the school but perhaps that’s more of the same. I’m curious if we can publish an open letter in the paper, like the Free Press. Or better get into the ears of a legislator. And I’m curious to know whether the we as the public have any say about the grant money. Anyone else have any ideas?
If anyone else has any advice or want to contact me, please let me know how to reach you. I’m online a lot as I work from home. I’ll be talking to the attorney tomorrow morning, and if the firm has no conflicts with GMC perhaps we can do something…
Advice certainly welcome!
A~
“If Lou is in a great deal of pain, then why is he not going to be humanely euthanized, via chemical euthanasia? And why, then, kill Bill as well? There is a great deal of rationalization going on here. Bill, as a healthy animal, could re-bond with another oxen and would do fine at the sanctuary. You do him no favor by choosing a “mercy slaughter” for him. I suspect that chemical euthanasia is not an option as it would render the meat inedible. And that is the crux of this matter. This is about getting rid of inconvenient animals in a way that extracts the last measure of “value” from them.
So which of the three following methods will be used for Lou and Bill? By default, if you intend to eat the meat, the only humane method, chemical euthanasia, is NOT an option. Most likely you will use the captive bolt, which stuns the animal, rendering him unconscious, and is followed by exsanguination, i.e. bleeding out, and the actual cause of death.
This is from the University of Wisconsin:
LARGE ANIMALS:
Large food-producing animals used in research and teaching require different considerations. Personal attachments are uncommon due to historic cultural use and the genetic breeding toward a herd animal. These animals however must be euthanized using the same criteria of rapid loss of consciousness. Their physical size and strength require special attention to the safety of the handlers. Drugs may leave residues which will make the meat unfit for human consumption.
1. Captive bolt. This method causes physical damage to the cerebrum and brainstem. A retractable bolt propelled by gunpowder is directe d toward the center of the brain. The animals must be adequately restrained to ensure proper placement of the bolt. This procedure is followed with exsanguination.
2. Intravenous injection of barbiturates. If the animal is not to be used for food consumption, this is a preferred method.
3. Electrocution. The only way to produce immediate unconsciousness is to apply electrodes to either side of the head, directing the current directly through the brain. It must be followed with exsanguination. This technique is primarily used on swine. Specific approval from the IACUC veterinarian must be obtained; this is usually done via protocol review. This method can be hazardous to the persons administering the electricity, so appropriate precautions must be taken.”
Dear Professor Ackerman-Leist and the Trustees, Administration, Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni of Green Mountain College:
As a university professor myself, I am very aware of the importance of teaching our students to make ethical choices in every realm of life, whether we are interacting with the environment, other people, or animals of all species. As you know, they are all interconnected. But more importantly is the question of honoring a being, whether human or animal, that has only served and trusted those who cared for him. Certainly Lou and Bill, the two campus oxen, have trusted their caretakers and show clear affection towards humans. As a horse owner, I am very aware that love knows no bounds, and social bonds exist across species. Any pet owner or person who works closely with animals can tell you this. Oxen are no different from horses in this regard. They develop bonds, show affection, and know when they are treated badly.
To slaughter Lou and Bill and then to serve their meat to the students at your school is ethically unacceptable. While there may be some who rationalize this action and condone it, others no doubt will find it reprehensible and will be confused and even traumatized by this extremely poor decision. To say that the meat will provide part of the food for the school for one month is just not an adequate reason to slaughter two loyal servants, especially since there is a sanctuary who wants them and will care for them for life. Send Lou and Bill to VINE, and demonstrate that you have a moral compass and the backbone to support it.
Would it not be better for your students to learn that we are responsible to the environment — both place and inhabitants of all species — and that our responsibility does not end when things become inconvenient? For them to see the full, natural life cycle of these two oxen as they retire, continue to live at the rescue, and then die in their own time? To learn that whether it is a person, a dog, a cat, a horse, or an oxen that we are responsible for the life span of that being and that slaughter is not the proper option of an ethical person or institution?
If these two oxen were ill and euthanasia was the best choice FOR them, I would agree with that. However, the chemicals used for euthanasia would render the meat inedible. So what is the real goal here? It would appear to any reasonable person that the true goal is to have a supply of meat that is nearly free, therefore it is purely an economic decision, cloaked in the politically correct mantel of “sustainability.” And as you know, decisions based on economic concerns alone are exactly what lead us down the path of environmental destruction. So the opportunity here is to teach a better lesson, honor the service of Lou and Bill, and perhaps the campus cafeteria can serve vegetarian meals for a short time in order to save money. There is a great teaching opportunity here, please think seriously about what it is, exactly, you are teaching.
Please speak out on this issue, and please do not rationalize the death of these two oxen. They deserve far better from the humans they have served for these many years.
Sybil Miller
Professor
St. Edward’s University
Austin, Texas
Imagine the confusion and grief and mental anguish Bill and Lou will feel if their loved “friends” hand them over to their executioner! How could they NOT realize that their lives are being violently taken from them? And for what? They have done no wrong! They have been good “servants,” loyal “servants.” Their “masters”, on the other hand. . . .
Surely no one at GMC wants to weigh down their conscience by committing a brutal, traitorous act that DOES NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN. Surely everyone at GMC is better than that — better by a (plowed-by-oxen) mile.
As I read the news from the shores of Singapore on how the administration of this college has decided to slaughter these 2 animals for food, i am not only left speechless by this decision, i am also horrified at how these beautiful animals will be treated after 10 years of service to your institution. Please for mercy sake, let these 2 animals live out the rest of their natural lives in the VINE sanctuary. Killing them not only will not serve any good, it will only bring really bad press to your wonderful institution. I hope you will reconsider this decision and from Singapore, we will all be watching this very closely.
Kind Regards,
Ting
I am so sorry I didn’t see your post to me on the 22th. There are so many sites that I have posted on that I’m having trouble remembering which ones to go back too.
I wish I would have spoke to you before you went to the attorney. Is there a way for you to connect with me or me you? My email address is sdkelly@shoreham.net. I don’t have any hope of getting help from our gov’t officials. They are going to back our Governor. I had 2 pet steer (one died) that had been together since the first week they were born. I know a bit about them and I don’t feel GMC is being honest to the public.
When I look at the pictures of Bill and Lou, I see 2 healthy steer. Maybe a little underweight, but by no means skinny.
One of the post had stated that the students that don’t go along with the slaughtering will fail. They are using this situation as their final exam. Pretty heart wrenching.
FYI, this Friday Oct 26, there is a group of us who are peacefully demonstrating near the college from 12 pm to 3 pm. Location: Corner of College and Main Street in front of Brennan Circle on sidewalk, Poultney VT.
I have room for 3 in my car if anyone would like to travel with me from Central Vermont.
P.S. I emailed you at the address you provided.
Very best and with heavy heart,
Alex
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20121016/THISJUSTIN/121019952