The First Step by: Leo Tolstoi

The First Step

by Leo Tolstoy

In Essays and Letters. New York: H. Frowde, 1909, pp. 82-91

translated by Aylmer Maude

Fasting is an indispensable condition of a good life; but in fasting, as in self-control in general, the question arises, with what shall we begin—how to fast, how often to eat, what to eat, what to avoid eating? And as we can do no work seriously without regarding the necessary order of sequence, so also we cannot fast without knowing where to begin—with what to commence self-control in food.

Fasting! And even an analysis of how to fast, and where to begin! The notion seems ridiculous and wild to the majority of men.

I remember how, with pride at his originality, an Evangelical preacher, who was attacking monastic asceticism, once said to me "Ours is not a Christianity of fasting and privations, but of beefsteaks." Christianity, or virtue in general—and beefsteaks!

During a long period of darkness and lack of all guidance, Pagan or Christian, so many wild, immoral ideas have made their way into our life (especially into that lower region of the first steps toward a good life—our relation to food, to which no one paid any attention), that it is difficult for us even to understand the audacity and senselessness of upholding, in our days, Christianity or virtue with beefsteaks.

We are not horrified by this association, solely because a strange thing has befallen us. We look and see not: listen and hear not. There is no bad odor, no sound, no monstrosity, to which man cannot become so accustomed that he ceases to remark what would strike a man unaccustomed to it. Precisely so it is in the moral region. Christianity and morality with beefsteaks!

A few days ago I visited the slaughter house in our town of Toula. It is built on the new and improved system practised in large towns, with a view to causing the animals as little suffering as possible. It was on a Friday, two days before Trinity Sunday. There were many cattle there. […]

Long before this […], I had wished to visit a slaughter house, in order to see with my own eyes the reality of the question raised when vegetarianism is discussed. But at first I felt ashamed to do so, as one is always ashamed of going to look at suffering which one knows is about to take place, but which one cannot avert; and so I kept putting off my visit.

But a little while ago I met on the road a butcher returning to Toula after a visit to his home. He is not yet an experienced butcher, and his duty is to stab with a knife. I asked him whether he did not feel sorry for the animals that he killed. He gave me the usual answer: "Why should I feel sorry? It is necessary." But when I told him that eating flesh is not necessary, but is only a luxury, he agreed; and then he admitted that he was sorry for the animals.

"But what can I do? I must earn my bread," he said. "At first I was afraid to kill. My father, he never even killed a chicken in all his life." The majority of Russians cannot kill; they feel pity, and express the feeling by the word "fear." This man had also been "afraid," but he was so no longer. He told me that most of the work was done on Fridays, when it continues until the evening.

Not long ago I also had a talk with a retired soldier, a butcher, and he, too, was surprised at my assertion that it was a pity to kill, and said the usual things about its being ordained; but afterwards he agreed with me: "Especially when they are quiet, tame cattle. They come, poor things! trusting you. It is very pitiful."

This is dreadful! Not the suffering and death of the animals, but that man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity—that of sympathy and pity toward living creatures like himself—and by violating his own feelings becomes cruel. And how deeply seated in the human heart is the injunction not to take life!

Once, when walking from Moscow, I was offered a lift by some carters who were going from Serpouhof to a neighboring forest to fetch wood. It was the Thursday before Easter. I was seated in the first cart, with a strong, red, coarse carman, who evidently drank. On entering a village we saw a well-fed, naked, pink pig being dragged out of the first yard to be slaughtered. It squealed in a dreadful voice, resembling the shriek of a man. Just as we were passing they began to kill it. A man gashed its throat with a knife. The pig squealed still more loudly and piercingly, broke away from the men, and ran off covered with blood. Being near-sighted I did not see all the details. I saw only the human-looking pink body of the pig and heard its desperate squeal; but the carter saw all the details and watched closely. They caught the pig, knocked it down, and finished cutting its throat. When its squeals ceased the carter sighed heavily. "Do men really not have to answer for such things?" he said.

So strong is man's aversion to all killing. But by example, by encouraging greediness, by the assertion that God has allowed it, and, above all, by habit, people entirely lose this natural feeling.

On Friday I decided to go to Toula, and, meeting a meek, kind acquaintance of mine, I invited him to accompany me.

"Yes, I have heard that the arrangements are good, and have been wishing to go and see it; but if they are slaughtering I will not go in."

"Why not? That's just what I want to see! If we eat flesh it must be killed."

"No, no, I cannot!"

It is worth remarking that this man is a sportsman and himself kills animals and birds.

So we went to the slaughter house. Even at the entrance one noticed the heavy, disgusting, fetid smell, as of carpenter's glue, or paint on glue. The nearer we approached, the stronger became the smell. The building is of red brick, very large, with vaults and high chimneys. We entered the gates. To the right was a spacious enclosed yard, three-quarters of an acre in extent—twice a week cattle are driven in here for sale—and adjoining this enclosure was the porter's lodge. To the left were the chambers, as they are called—i.e., rooms with arched entrances, sloping asphalt floors, and contrivances for moving and hanging up the carcasses. On a bench against the wall of the porter's lodge were seated half a dozen butchers, in aprons covered with blood, their tucked-up sleeves disclosing their muscular arms also besmeared with blood. They had finished their work half an hour before, so that day we could only see the empty chambers. Though these chambers were open on both sides, there was an oppressive smell of warm blood; the floor was brown and shining, with congealed black blood in the cavities.

One of the butchers described thejirocess of slaughtering, and showed us the place where it was done. I did not quite understand him, and formed a wrong, but very horrible, idea of the way the animals are slaughtered; and I fancied that, as is often the case, the reality would very likely produce upon me a weaker impression than the imagination. But in this I was mistaken.

The next time I visited the slaughter house I went in good time. It was the Friday before Trinity—a warm day in June. The smell of glue and blood was even stronger and more penetrating than on my first visit. The work was at its height. The duty yard was full of cattle, and animals had been driven into all the enclosures beside the chambers.

In the street, before the entrance, stood carts to which oxen, calves, and cows were tied. Other carts drawn by good horses and filled with live calves, whose heads hung down and swayed about, drew up and were unloaded; and similar carts containing the carcasses of oxen, with trembling legs sticking out, with heads and bright red lungs and brown livers, drove away from the slaughter house. The dealers themselves, in their long coats, with their whips and knouts in their hands, were walking about the yard, either marking with tar cattle belonging to the same owner, or bargaining, or else guiding oxen and bulls from the great yard into the enclosures which lead into the chambers. These men were evidently all preoccupied with money matters and calculations, and any thought as to whether it was right or wrong to kill these animals was as far from their minds as were questions about the chemical composition of the blood that covered the floor of the chambers.

No butchers were to be seen in the yard; they were all in the chambers at work. That day about a hundred head of cattle were slaughtered. I was on the point of entering one of the chambers, but stopped short at the door. I stopped both because the chamber was crowded with carcasses which were being moved about, and also because blood was flowing on the floor and dripping from above. All the butchers present were besmeared with blood, and had I entered I, too, should certainly have been covered with it. One suspended carcass was being taken down, another was being moved toward the door, a third, a slaughtered ox, was lying with its white legs raised, while a butcher with strong hand was ripping up its tight-stretched hide.

Through the door opposite the one at which I was standing, a big, red, well-fed ox was led in. Two men were dragging it, and hardly had it entered when I saw a butcher raise a knife above its neck and stab it. The ox, as if all four legs had suddenly given way, fell heavily upon its belly, immediately turned over on one side, and began to work its legs and all its hind-quarters. Another butcher at once threw himself upon the ox from the side opposite to the twitching legs, caught its horns and twisted its head down to the ground, while another butcher cut its throat with a knife. From beneath the head there flowed a stream of blackish-red blood, which a besmeared boy caught in a tin basin. All the time this was going on the ox kept incessantly twitching its head as if trying to get up, and waved its four legs in the air. The basin was quickly filling, but the ox still lived, and, its stomach heaving heavily, both hind and fore legs worked so violently that the butchers held aloof. When one basin was full, the boy carried it away on his head to the albumen factory, while another boy placed a fresh basin, which also soon began to fill up. But still the ox heaved its body and worked its hind legs.

When the blood ceased to flow the butcher raised the animal's head and began to skin it. The ox continued to writhe. The head, stripped of its skin, showed red with white veins, and kept the position given it by the butcher; on both sides hung the skin. Still the animal did not cease to writhe. Than another butcher caught hold of one of the legs, broke it, and cut it off. In the remaining legs and the stomach the convulsions still continued. The other legs were cut off and thrown aside, together with those of other oxen belonging to the same owner. Then the carcass was dragged to the hoist and hung up, and the convulsions were over.

Thus I looked on from the door at the second, third, fourth ox. It was the same with each: the same cutting off of the head with bitten tongue, and the same convulsed members. The only difference was that the butcher did not always strike at once so as to cause the animal's fall. Sometimes he missed his aim, whereupon the ox leaped up, bellowed, and, covered with blood, tried to escape. But then his head was pulled under a bar, struck a second time, and he fell.

I afterwards entered by the door at which the oxen were led in. Here I saw the same thing, only nearer, and therefore more plainly. But chiefly I saw here, what I had not seen before, how the oxen were forced to enter this door. Each time an ox was seized in the enclosure and pulled forward by a rope tied to its horns, the animal, smelling blood, refused to advance, and sometimes bellowed and drew back. It would have been beyond the strength of two men to drag it in by force, so one of the butchers went round each time, grasped the animal's tail and twisted it so violently that the gristle crackled, and the ox advanced.

When they had finished with the cattle of one owner, they brought in those of another. The first animal of his next lot was not an ox, but a bull —a fine, well-bred creature, black, with white spots on its legs, young, muscular, full of energy. He was dragged forward, but he lowered his head and resisted sturdily. Then the butcher who followed behind seized the tail, like an engine-driver grasping the handle of a whistle, twisted it, the gristle crackled, and the bull rushed forward, upsetting the men who held the rope. Then it stopped, looking sideways with its black eyes, the whites of which had filled with blood. But again the tail crackled, and the bull sprang forward and reached the required spot. The striker approached, took aim, and struck. But the blow missed the mark. The bull leaped up, shook his head, bellowed, and, covered with blood, broke free and rushed back. The men at the doorway all sprang aside: but the experienced butchers, with the dash of men inured to danger, quickly caught the rope; again the tail operation was repeated, and again the bull was in the chamber, where he was dragged under the bar, from which he did not again escape. The striker quickly took aim at the spot where the hair divides like a star, and, notwithstanding the blood, found it, struck, and the fine animal, full of life, collapsed, its head and legs writhing while it was bled and the head skinned.

"There, the cursed devil hasn't even fallen the right way!" grumbled the butcher as he cut the skin from the head.

Five minutes later the head was stuck up, red instead of black, without skin; the eyes, that had shone with such splendid color five minutes before, fixed and glassy.

Afterwards I went into the compartment where small animals are slaughtered—a very large chamber with asphalt floor, and tables with backs, on which sheep and calves are killed. Here the work was already finished; in the long room, impregnated with the smell of blood, were only two butchers. One was blowing into the leg of a dead lamb and patting the swollen stomach with his hand; the other, a young fellow in an apron besmeared with blood, was smoking a bent cigarette. There was no one else in the long, dark chamber, filled with a heavy smell. After me there entered a man, apparently an ex-soldier, bringing in a young yearling ram, black with a white mark on its neck, and its legs tied. This animal he placed upon one of the tables, as if upon a bed. The old soldier greeted the butchers, with whom he was evidently acquainted, and began to ask when their master allowed them leave. The fellow with the cigarette approached with a knife, sharpened it on the edge of the table, and answered that they were free on holidays. The live ram was lying as quietly as the dead inflated one, except that it was briskly wagging its short little tail and its sides were heaving more quickly than usual. The soldier pressed down its uplifted head gently, without effort; the butcher, still continuing the conversation, grasped with his left hand the head of the ram and cut its throat. The ram quivered, and the little tail stiffened and ceased to wave. The fellow, while waiting for the blood to flow, began to relight his cigarette, which had gone out. The blood flowed and the ram began to writhe. The conversation continued without the slightest interruption. It was horribly revolting. […]

[A]nd how about those hens and chickens which daily, in thousands of kitchens, with heads cut off and streaming with blood, comically, dreadfully, flop about, jerking their wings?

And see, a kind, refined lady will devour the carcasses of these animals with full assurance that she is doing right, at the same time asserting two contradictory propositions:

First, that she is, as her doctor assures her, so delicate that she cannot be sustained by vegetable food alone, and that for her feeble organism flesh is indispensable; and, secondly, that she is so sensitive that she is unable, not only herself to inflict suffering on animals, but even to bear the sight of suffering.

Whereas the poor lady is weak precisely because she has been taught to live upon food unnatural to man; and she cannot avoid causing suffering to animals—for she eats them.

will inevitably follow one definite sequence, and in this sequence the first thing will be self-control in food—fasting. And in fasting, if he be really and seriously seeking to live a good life, the first thing from which he will abstain will always be the use of animal food, because, to say nothing of the excitation of the passions caused by such food, its use is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an act which is contrary to the moral feeling—killing; and is called forth only by greediness and the desire for tasty food. […]

[W]e cannot pretend that we do not know this. We are not ostriches, and cannot believe that if we refuse to look at what we do not wish to see, it will not exist. This is especially the case when what we do not wish to see is what we wish to eat. If it were really indispensable, or, if not indispensable, at least in some way useful! But it is quite unnecessary, and only serves to develop animal feelings, to excite desire, and to promote fornication and drunkenness. And this is continually being confirmed by the fact that young, kind, undepraved people—especially women and girls—without knowing how it logically follows, feel that virtue is incompatible with beefsteaks, and, as soon as they wish to be good, give up eating flesh.

What, then, do I wish to say? That in order to be moral people must cease to eat meat? Not at all.

I only wish to say that for a good life a certain order of good actions is indispensable; that if a man's aspirations toward right living be serious they will inevitably follow one definite sequence; and that in this sequence the first virtue a man will strive after will be self-control, self-restraint. And in seeking for self-control a man will inevitably follow one definite sequence, and in this sequence the first thing will be self-control in food –fasting. And in fasting, if he be really and seriously seeking to live a good life, the first thing from which he will abstain will always be the use of animal, food, because, to say nothing of the excitation of the passions caused by such food, its use is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an act which is contrary to the moral feeling –killing; and is called forth only by greediness and the desire for tasty food.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/

Steve Wonder talk to your wife !

Do you like Steve Wonders Music? I do.
Do you Think Steve Wonder is a caring Person? I thought so.
He does all kinds of charities and comes across as a caring person.
Do you think Steve Wonder knows that animals are tortured, skinned alive, electrocuted, bludgeoned to death so his wife Kai Milla can make the gaudy fur clothes, for greed and vanity?

I wonder if Steve Wonder pays any attention??? Steve Wonder please pay attention. If you want to be believed as a humane and caring person pay attention and have a talk with your wife please!

It can't be that you or her are hard up for money. WHY WHY WHY must you design clothes that reeks of death and horror?

Next time I hear his music, I'll probably wont find it very inspiring. The bloody bodies of the poor animal his wife helps to kill will come to my mind and the stupid, mindless and heartless people that wear these clothes WHO BUYS THESE FURS? I though Fur went out in the 1970. Men that wear fur look like pimps and women that wear fur look like hookers!
Stacy J. (from The Apprentice) backstage at Kai Milla

What gives???????????????????????

Check out most of Kai Milla's Designs.. Black Leather dominatrix, hooker comes to mind. Gaudy and ugly! Making Ugly clothes for selfish women is one thing, but to kill innocent beings, my friends to create that crap is a whole other story.

And look who's interested in that trash


I am offended!
http://www.newyorkcool.com/archives/2006/February/fashion_17.htm
Serena Williams backstage at Kai Milla

Why would some as beautiful as Serena want to dress in such gaudy clothes.
I hope she knows that fur has bad karma and comes from violence and death.
Much against Dr. Kings Message of non Violence!
I hope Serena won't support designers that kill animals for fashions.

http://www.furisdead.com/

Mario's Sexy 'Ink Not Mink' Ad

Mario says, "Be comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs."

Grammy-nominated and Billboard Music Award–winning soulful R&B singing sensation Mario has been climbing the charts with his new album, D.N.A., and now he is stepping up to do his part for animals by posing for our provocative "Ink, Not Mink" campaign. The multitalented Baltimore native exposes his "Soul Truth" tattoo and encourages his fans to "[b]e comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs," with this sexy ad.

Of course Kai Milla is NOT the only one who does not care about the animal suffering.
Armani is another one. he said he stop using fur then he went back on his word. Greed, vanity, greed vanity... on and on


Rabbit Skinned Alive for the Fur Industry awaiting a slow painful death.

And yes these animals are often skinned alive. The one above is still alive waiting to die!

Monica Pearson Atlanta's Most Hypocritical Anchor

In this interview she talks about comics and how they can be used to address current issues of morality...

What an utter hypocrite! She is so full of herself.

Monica Pearson Interview from Richard Wright on Vimeo.

I wrote and an email to an Atlanta News Anchor Named Monica Pearson after seeing her on TV in an ad from London promoting a "Diana" special! In the ad she wore a fancy gold tone leather coat with a large fur collar.

I really did not necessarily expect Monica Pearson to agree with my message and denounce fur on the spot, I was simply hoping to somehow reach her heart.

Well here is the e-mail I send to Monica Pearson and about two hours later I get her response, which I am posting here right underneath.

This is what I wrote in it's totality:

Dear Ms. Pearson,

Allow me to express a concern.
I have been a fan of you ever since I moved to Atlanta 20+ years ago.

A few minutes ago today Monday January 25th around 7:10 PM I saw an ad where you speak of a Diana Special from London.

In this ad you are wearing what seems a leather coat with a fox or raccoon dog collar.

I was very, very surprised to see that.

Up until about two years ago I may have worn a fur coat myself, however I am certain you are much more worldly and knowledgeable about many things including the horrific fur industry then I was.
You must know about the cruel barbaric fur industry. If not please research and see with your own eyes. PLEASE!

Two years ago I saw shocking footage that turned my life around when it comes to the fur, leather and meat & dairy industry. After that I could never again wear fur again and I also have become a vegan. It was a matter of conscience. I suddenly understood the meaning of "Once I was Blind. But Now I see!"

The fur industry routinely skins animals alive. I have seen footage in which a raccoon dog is skinned alive and after the poor creature is skinless, his bloody bare body, the animal still alive was thrown on to a hep and you could see his eye blinking. It took about five minutes for the animal to perish. This is common practice and many of these fur farms are in china. Most furs used in these fashions come from china. Some like baby seal comes from Canada where they still bludgeon baby seal to death by the thousands. In China the routinely skin German Sheppard's, and any dog that has pretty fur, like Golden Retrievers who are made in to rugs. It is so barbaric that it leaves you stunned just watching.

Please I urge you to reconsider wearing fur.

You are such a role model for many and you could really affect young women and how they look at wearing fur. I don't know you personally but I cannot imagine that if you saw the footage, of how these animals are treated not only skinned while alive, but also the conditions they endure while waiting for death, I can not imagine that you you would still wear fur.

You are too beautiful to participate in such a bloody inhuman business. It's not wort it. There are so many warm fashionable coats and faux fur collars, these days. Fur is so old fashioned and cruel.

Please join others, like our First Lady who does not wear fur, or Oprah, Carrie Underwood and so many more and denounce fur for it is cruel and inhuman.

Thank you for your time.
Kind Regards
Ginette Callaway

Trying to speak for those without a voice!

PS: Forgive me if this seems like I am in to your business. But I am so disturbed by all these cruel facts that I can not be silent about it. I just don't think you could be either, for you are an outspoken direct person from all the years I have been watching you, I think you are kind as well.

and here is Mrs. Monica Pearson's Response:

"Ms. Callaway, we agree to disagree. I wear fur and I also am a pet owner.
I also eat meat and fish and fowl and wear leather etc. We won't be able to agree on this nor convince the other of our stance. That's the wonderful thing about America, as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want and we can express our opinions. Thank you for expressing yours. Monica Pearson"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote her back.

Your arguments is "as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want!" shocks me to the bone. Especially coming from an African American person.

There was a time slavery was also legal, but that did not make it right.
Thank God there were people who know in their hearts it was wrong and acted against that law. Harriet Tubman was one of them. Those men and women who ran the underground railroad broke the law every day to do what was right.

One day we WILL look back and shutter at the length we as humans went through to indulge our vices. Killing animal for vanity will be just as unthinkable some day as it is unthinkable today to put humans in chains.
Just as unthinkable as smoking in a hospital room today (which was common when I was a teenager!) The laws have changed, because we learned better ways!

ohhh update... I got a response from Monica Pearson and it was telling!

Ms. Callaway, Conversation over. How dare you compare slavery to wearing fur. Slaves were and are human beings and I'm insulted that you would write that comparison. Animals are animals, but they are not human beings and if you don't know the difference, we truly have a problem.

Let's just leave it with, we disagree and that's enough. By the way, there are some things that are legal that I disagree with on religious reasons but I uphold people's right to do them until the law is changed. And I could go down the Biblical path to dispute your argument, but that wouldn't change your mind and you can't change mine.


Monica Pearson

____________You can email Monica at monica.pearson@wsbtv.com______________________

As to the Bible pathways... that you talk about... disobedient Christians have long used Bible pathways to justify their wrong doings, it is too inconvenient to change. Monica Pearce according to your biography you go to a Catholic Church, so I guess you are catholic. The Pope has declared that animal have souls. Are you familiar with Saint Francis of Assisi? The church has said they condemn cruelty to animals. FUR is derived through cruelty. Check it out Monica if you dare.

You just may learn something

In this video below she says: "As A reporter my job is to ask questions!"

well she sure didn't ask any question after receiving my e-mail.
She doesn't strike me as someone who lives by all these pretty words she speaks.

She says: "I love to ask questions... I Love to get in to people's business!" and then she laughs clownishly enjoying the getting in to people's business part.

She doesn't like if anyone gets in to her business that is for sure. Typical elitist reporter!!!


I still recommend she'll watch Earthlings so she can begin to understand what specicism is.

Here is more of the same phony Bologna. She says about reading blogs... "I like them all??? Liar!

I bet she doesn't like mine or any animal rights or vegan blog... and she says:
"I like to get a different kind of view!" Yeah right... I can just see that in the e-mail response you send me... you did not even try to engage in a conversation. As a matter of fact Your words Monica where: "This conversation is over! You are so full of it!

The ultiate sacrifice to fight animal cruelty

Father: Son who burned himself alive was a troubled genius

Warren Shaull, the father of Daniel Shaull, 26, talked to KATU News shortly after hearing about his son’s death.

“Because of the way that he thinks, maybe he thought that was the only way out,” Warren Shaull said. He added that Daniel may have become convinced “that nothing was ever going to change and there was nothing he could do about it."

According to witnesses, Daniel Shaull doused himself with gasoline and then lit the fuel while he stood outside the Portland furrier Nicholas Ungar Furs, located in downtown Portland.

The business has been the target of protests by animal rights groups for the past several years.

Man Sets Himself on Fire at Portland Fur Store

Jan 28th, 2010 by Peter Young

Serious news.

A man set himself on fire Wednesday outside Ungar Furs in Portland, Oregon. After dousing himself with gasoline, he attempted to enter the store, shouting “There are animals dying! Animals dying!” After police extinguished the flames, he was taken to Legacy Emanuel Hospital where he later died.

The man was identified as 26-year-old Daniel Shaull from Kansas. Among the local activists I have spoken to, none are familiar with Shaull by name, nor recognized him as being a part of the active, long-running campaign against Ungar Furs. Yet the location and witness reports strongly indicate this man sacrificed himself to bring attention to the horrific treatment of animals on fur farms.

A news report, which aired prior to Shaull being announced dead, can be viewed here.

Ungar Furs is a retail fur store in Portland which has been the target of a prolific campaign by local activists. Ungar became a target after frequent protests successfully closed another Portland fur store, Schumacher Furs. The owners of Schumacher Furs gave animal rights activists full credit for shutting them down in 2007.

Amidst a range of speculation as to the man’s true motives, I think it is important to assume this is a genuine action by a person driven to make the ultimate sacrifice by the severity of animal suffering. When every legal channel to affect change is closed, people will increasingly be driven to actions which bring both attention to the plight of animals, and a disruptive effect to those who kill them.

Shaull is not the first to give his life in the U.S. animal liberation struggle. This is a time to remember William Rodgers, who took his life in an Arizona jail in 2005 while being held for numerous Animal Liberation Front actions. It is also a time to remember Alex Slack, who took his life while awaiting trial for the A.L.F. bombing of the Utah Fur Breeder’s Agricultural Cooperative in 1999.

If anyone knows Daniel Shaull, please contact Voice of the Voiceless, so that we can make the full story of this action known.

To those who claim the animal rights movement is “violent”, this action should be yet another reminder that every casualty to date has fallen on our side. Daniel Shaull is just the latest victim.

“If this is what the world has made of us, then let it live with the consequences”.

-Peter Young

Contact: info@voiceofthevoiceless.org or email VOV here.
Twitter: Follow animal liberation movement updates on Twitter.
Email signup: Animal liberation news weekly updates. Subscribe to the Voice of the Voiceless email list.

Portland fur shop to pay fine of $40,000
Nicholas Ungar Furs is accused of selling coats and other items made from pelts of endangered or banned species

Thursday, September 15, 2005
NOELLE CROMBIE

Nicholas Ungar Furs to Pay Fine of $40,000

author: IDA reposted by beagle

Resulting in a tip to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife by In Defense of Animals, Nicholas Unger Furs is fined for at least $40,000 for selling coats and other items made from pelts of endangered or banned species. What a Victory! You can read part of the article below and get the link to the entire article.

It just goes to prove that working, In Defense of Animals, does have its payoffs!

Thanks for all you do for the animals! It's working!

www.furkills.com
www.furisdead.org

In March, James Stinebaugh walked into Nicholas Ungar Furs and asked the boutique owner for help selecting a fur for his wife.

Stinebaugh told Horst Grimm that he was in town on business, according to documents filed in federal court. He said he was shopping for an anniversary present and wanted something "exotic." Grimm, the shop owner, showed him a leopard coat. When Stinebaugh asked to see something made from seal fur, Grimm reached for a $4,500 coat hanging on a rack.

Stinebaugh, it turns out, was a special agent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on an undercover assignment to see if Nicholas Ungar Furs was peddling fur coats made from illicit animal pelts.


To read the entire article visit
link to www.oregonlive.com homepage: http://www.furisdead.com

Monica Kaufman Now Pearson Please watch these videos

Non Violence must include animals!!!

I dare Monica Pearson to watch these videos.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!" ~ Dr. King

Animals are not treated like animals. They are denied anyhting that is natural to them.
Animals are treated like "Things!"

"Monica Pearson" Atlanta's #1? News Anchor responding to my e-mail about wearing Fur!

UPDATE Afternoon January 26, 2010: Monica Pearson did respond back to my last email and she seems VERY ANGRY... at me not at animal cruelty!
Obviously she is not comprehending the message that cruelty is wrong no matter what species it is inflicted on. Humans are part of the animal species, only we are supposed to be more enlightened... some more then others ! Some are more "Animalistic" then others. It looks that humans indeed are the only species that kills for joy and vanity and get angry when called upon!
We got a long way to go folks to true enlightenment! Very frustrating!

I wrote and an email to an Atlanta News Anchor Named Monica Pearson after seeing her on TV in an ad from London promoting a "Diana" special! In the ad she wore a fancy gold tone leather coat with a large fur collar.

I really did not necessarily expect Monica Pearson to agree with my message and denounce fur on the spot, I was simply hoping to somehow reach her heart.

Well here is the e-mail I send to Monica Pearson and about two hours later I get her response, which I am posting here right underneath.

This is what I wrote in it's totality:

Dear Ms. Pearson,

Allow me to express a concern.
I have been a fan of you ever since I moved to Atlanta 20+ years ago.

A few minutes ago today Monday January 25th around 7:10 PM I saw an ad where you speak of a Diana Special from London.

In this ad you are wearing what seems a leather coat with a fox or raccoon dog collar.

I was very, very surprised to see that.

Up until about two years ago I may have worn a fur coat myself, however I am certain you are much more worldly and knowledgeable about many things including the horrific fur industry then I was.
You must know about the cruel barbaric fur industry. If not please research and see with your own eyes. PLEASE!

Two years ago I saw shocking footage that turned my life around when it comes to the fur, leather and meat & dairy industry. After that I could never again wear fur again and I also have become a vegan. It was a matter of conscience. I suddenly understood the meaning of "Once I was Blind. But Now I see!"

The fur industry routinely skins animals alive. I have seen footage in which a raccoon dog is skinned alive and after the poor creature is skinless, his bloody bare body, the animal still alive was thrown on to a hep and you could see his eye blinking. It took about five minutes for the animal to perish. This is common practice and many of these fur farms are in china. Most furs used in these fashions come from china. Some like baby seal comes from Canada where they still bludgeon baby seal to death by the thousands. In China the routinely skin German Sheppard's, and any dog that has pretty fur, like Golden Retrievers who are made in to rugs. It is so barbaric that it leaves you stunned just watching.

Please I urge you to reconsider wearing fur.

You are such a role model for many and you could really affect young women and how they look at wearing fur. I don't know you personally but I cannot imagine that if you saw the footage, of how these animals are treated not only skinned while alive, but also the conditions they endure while waiting for death, I can not imagine that you you would still wear fur.

You are too beautiful to participate in such a bloody inhuman business. It's not wort it. There are so many warm fashionable coats and faux fur collars, these days. Fur is so old fashioned and cruel.

Please join others, like our First Lady who does not wear fur, or Oprah, Carrie Underwood and so many more and denounce fur for it is cruel and inhuman.

Thank you for your time.
Kind Regards
Ginette Callaway

Trying to speak for those without a voice!

PS: Forgive me if this seems like I am in to your business. But I am so disturbed by all these cruel facts that I can not be silent about it. I just don't think you could be either, for you are an outspoken direct person from all the years I have been watching you, I think you are kind as well.

and here is Mrs. Monica Pearson's Response:

"Ms. Callaway, we agree to disagree. I wear fur and I also am a pet owner.
I also eat meat and fish and fowl and wear leather etc. We won't be able to agree on this nor convince the other of our stance. That's the wonderful thing about America, as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want and we can express our opinions. Thank you for expressing yours. Monica Pearson"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote her back.

Your arguments is "as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want!" shocks me to the bone. Especially coming from an African American person.

There was a time slavery was also legal, but that did not make it right.
Thank God there were people who know in their hearts it was wrong and acted against that law. Harriet Tubman was one of them. Those men and women who ran the underground railroad broke the law every day to do what was right.

One day we WILL look back and shutter at the length we as humans went through to indulge our vices. Killing animal for vanity will be just as unthinkable some day as it is unthinkable today to put humans in chains.
Just as unthinkable as smoking in a hospital room today (which was common when I was a teenager!) The laws have changed, because we learned better ways!

ohhh update... I got a response from Monica Pearson and it was telling!

Ms. Callaway, Conversation over. How dare you compare slavery to wearing fur. Slaves were and are human beings and I'm insulted that you would write that comparison. Animals are animals, but they are not human beings and if you don't know the difference, we truly have a problem.

Let's just leave it with, we disagree and that's enough. By the way, there are some things that are legal that I disagree with on religious reasons but I uphold people's right to do them until the law is changed. And I could go down the Biblical path to dispute your argument, but that wouldn't change your mind and you can't change mine.


Monica Pearson

____________You can email Monica at monica.pearson@wsbtv.com______________________

As to the Bible pathways... that you talk about... disobedient Christians have long used Bible pathways to justify their wrong doings, it is too inconvenient to change. Monica Pearce according to your biography you go to a Catholic Church, so I guess you are catholic. The Pope has declared that animal have souls. Are you familiar with Saint Francis of Assisi? The church has said they condemn cruelty to animals. FUR is derived through cruelty. Check it out Monica if you dare.

You just may learn something

In this video below she says: "As A reporter my job is to ask questions!"

well she sure didn't ask any question after receiving my e-mail.
She doesn't strike me as someone who lives by all these pretty words she speaks.

She says: "I love to ask questions... I Love to get in to people's business!" and then she laughs clownishly enjoying the getting in to people's business part.

She doesn't like if anyone gets in to her business that is for sure. Typical elitist reporter!!!


I still recommend she'll watch Earthlings so she can begin to understand what specicism is.

Here is more of the same phony Bologna. She says about reading blogs... "I like them all??? Liar!

I bet she doesn't like mine or any animal rights or vegan blog... and she says:
"I like to get a different kind of view!" Yeah right... I can just see that in the e-mail response you send me... you did not even try to engage in a conversation. As a matter of fact Your words Monica where: "This conversation is over! You are so full of it!

==================================================

Monica Pearson told me off... didn't she!

Ms. Callaway, Conversation over. How dare you compare slavery to wearing fur. Slaves were and are human beings and I'm insulted that you would write that comparison. Animals are animals, but they are not human beings and if you don't know the difference, we truly have a problem.

Let's just leave it with, we disagree and that's enough. By the way, there are some things that are legal that I disagree with on religious reasons but I uphold people's right to do them until the law is changed. And I could go down the Biblical path to dispute your argument, but that wouldn't change your mind and you can't change mine.

Monica Pearson

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did she say she is "insulted" and "How dare I"? How dare you be insulted when you are obviously an unrepentant participant in killing of innocent beings. Is it just me or are we getting tired of people being insulted by this or that. Where is your outrage at real suffering!!! You are supposed to be a role model for the betterment of humanity but all you really are is an elitist pretender!

I get it Monica... I can't change your mind! But time and circumstance may do it someday for you. Just as it did to me! I pray you and millions like you will someday see the error of their ways! I hope to see that in my lifetime! That is the only thing I really want, knowing before I die that the human species stopped killing needlessly!

---------------------------------------------------------

Coretta Scott King, Dexter Scott King, and the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. Wednesday, 01 February 2006
http://veg.ca/content/view/515/113/

The widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., died on Jan. 30, 2006. She had devoted her life to his legacy. An activist long before she met her husband, she embraced a vegan diet in 1995 due to the influence of her son, Dexter Scott King. Coretta believed that promoting animal rights was the next "logical extension" of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s philosophy of non-violence. "She would always admonish us that ... one of the ways you bring about change is, you must change yourself so that you're prepared to lead people in the direction they should go. If your emotions are as bad as those you're fighting, even if your cause is just, you disqualify yourself from being effective," the Rev. Al Sharpton told CNN. Rev. Jesse Jackson recounted that when an assassin's bullet killed her husband in Memphis in 1968, just prior to a planned march, Mrs. King organized her husband's funeral, then "went to Memphis and finished the march. She was a staunch freedom fighter." Mrs. King spoke out "on behalf of racial and economic justice, women's and children's rights, gay and lesbian dignity, religious freedom, the needs of the poor and homeless, full employment, health care, educational opportunities, nuclear disarmament and ecological sanity," says the biography on The King Center's Web site. Her son Dexter Scott King , is a prominent civil rights activist in his own right. He is currently Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc. (The King Center), in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. King has served as a member of the board of directors since 1984. In 1987, he was introduced to vegetarianism by comedian/activist Dick Gregory (more about him below). Gregory is also no stranger to the fight against injustice. He has been an influential figure in the civil rights movement for more than 40 years and was an outspoken advocate for peace during the Vietnam War. He is also an enthusiastic PETA supporter and has recorded two public service announcements – one urging people to boycott circuses that use animals in what he calls “modern-day slavery”, and the other a narrated expose of KFC's cruelty to chickens [view]. "Veganism has given me a higher level of awareness and spirituality, primary because the energy associated with eating has shifted to other areas," Dextor King told Vegetarian Times in a 1995 interview. The King family name is practically synonymous with the principles of non-violence, and Dexter King believes that vegetarianism is the logical extension of that philosophy. "If you're violent to yourself by putting [harmful] things into your body that violate its spirit, it will be difficult not to perpetuate that [violence] onto someone else," he said. During the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr. captured the attention of the American nation with his commitment to the method of nonviolent resistance. According to Dr. King, this was the only solution that could cure society’s evil and create a just society. In 1959, he visited India to study Mohandas Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence. If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought and acted, inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace and harmony. We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk. – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! – From his famous speech delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. Sources: A King among men: Martin Luther King Jr.'s son blazes his own trail - Dexter Scott King Vegetarian Times, Oct, 1995 MLK Day: Vegan Soul Food DCist.com, January 16, 2006 Coretta Scott King dies CNN, Tuesday, January 31, 2006 "Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form. I felt the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other (war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like) but in their practice of killing animals for food and sport. Animals and humans suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life." – Dick Gregory, comedian & activist, from his memoir, Callus on my Soul

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have to admit the callous response by someone I admired and seen on TV for over 30 years left me discouraged. If some like her can be so dismissive of the violence against animals issue, how can less educated, or less influential people be reached. If those that people look up to are not even thinkers how can anyhting change. It can but slow I am sure. I have to remind myslef that there are prominet vegans and vegetrians in Atlanta and the country and the world. Monica Pearson is really just a speck in this city and on the outside looking in as far as enlightened is concerned.

Monica Pearson does all kinds of interviews with celebrities and it seems she is well educated and I figured she must know about the horrible conditions of the fur industry, if not she should.

For some reason I keep on believing that most people have hearts and the only way they enable cruelty is because they don't know better. I have this naive believe that if everyone saw the cruelty of the fur industry they would change just as I was compelled to change.
I am beginning to notice a disturbing pattern and that is: "Many People do not want to know!" They reject any debate. discussion because "They Don't Want to Know"!

Is it because as soon as you know, as soon as you see with your own eyes you have to make a choice one way or the other? Is it to inconvenient? Could you look in to your child's eyes if your child new that you are part of the cruelty machine? We hide the truth from children and corrupt them in the process, if children knew they would immediately recognize the wrong of it all. We would fall off our pedestals, on which we put ourselves!

How would we justify our behavior to them! A child's mind and heart is simple and pure, not yet corrupted by "Vanity & Greed"! When children see an animal suffer, a normally developed child will have an automatic response of compassion and hurt for the animal, most normal adults will too. Is this why some people do not want to look, because it forces them to chose and thereby decide who they really are?

A visceral response to observed cruelty on any living being, is something we are born with, that keeps us from doing cruel things! Are we absolved from guilt if we are not the ones that do the cruel things, but "ONLY" consume that that comes from cruelty?

We leave the dirty work to those, that have overcome that natural visceral response and whose hearts have turned to stones, so they can now do the most vile acts on pain felling beings, without blinking an eye. They do the bloody work so people just like Monica Pearson can wear fur. Designers like ARMANI can make millions and live in luxury. It is the twilight zone, the underworld of those that wear the skin of another species for pure vanity!

Are our vices more important to us then our virtues? And why is it that when I speak to "staunch" church goers about this they seem to be the most callous of all? They say the most callous things. Animals are there for us to "USE" they insist even angrily. They seem to be able to get angry at the messengers but show no emotion to the message other then dismissal!

"USING ANIMALS is God's will!" Christians say, it includes AbUSING, it seems to encompass everything, including making theme suffer, torture and extinct, indulging all the seven deadly sins! It is the Christan way I suppose? Is that what Jesus would do???

Would Jesus approve of that and would he absolve you becasue you ONLY WEAR the fur???

I can not find statements in the bible that justify any atrocities against any living being. Organized religion is failing humanity... people rushing about engaging in giving to charities, makings themselves feel good... "How good am I? Going to Church on Sunday only to do wrong on Monday! Some people seem to go to church just to sing in the choir! The Modern Church is just another form of social network and entertainment. A place to meet and greet, to make connections like on the golf course, to show your vocal skills, see and be seen.

Show up in leather coat with fur collar, eating a steak and not caring one bit about the suffering of animals. Modern organized religion is a scary machine. Blood on their hands and pride in their hearts!

The response from Monica Pearson said more in between the lines, then her words ever could. That was was not said, speaks volumes. No mentioning of the suffering of animals, only her self interest seemed to matter. "As long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want!"

What she wants is all that matters! No hint of maybe rethinking her ways.

In Monica Pearson's biography it says: "

"Monica is a Life Member of the NAACP, and she secured a Life Membership for her daughter, Claire Patrice, at age 9 months. Claire was born in 1980. Monica is a member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. She is a member of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church where she attends the 8 a.m. services and she also attends the 11 a.m. services at Gospel Tabernacle Church, where her husband is the senior elder and she sings in the Women's Choir. She is a native of Louisville, Kentucky. She was coordinator of the senior citizens program at her church, called “Young at Heart and Filled with Spirit.” She was inducted into the NATAS Silver Circle and in 2007 received the Board of Governors Award from the Southeastern Chapter of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences."

As a Catholic, a human, an African American, why would she write such terse and arrogant response? As a member of the NAACP I am sure she is involved in many events celebrating the life and message of Dr. King... his most important message was that of non violence. Non Violence! You can NOT wear fur and eat meat and call yourself a non violent person. It just isn't that easy! You can not spill blood direct or indirect of innocent helpless being and call yourself non violent!!! Especially when these being are doing nothing to you, they are not attacking you, or trying to hurt you. So you can't even claim self defense! There simply is no excuse!

Ms. Callaway, we agree to disagree. I wear fur and I also am a pet owner.
I also eat meat and fish and fowl and wear leather etc. We won't be able to agree on this nor convince the other of our stance. That's the wonderful thing about America, as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want and we can express our opinions. Thank you for expressing yours. Monica Pearson

I never though she was heartless but this is a heartless response.
"As long as it is legal"! Coming from an African American it is even more shocking. At one time Slavery was legal but that did not make it right! Thank God the abolitionists did not follow the law at the time they did what they knew was right!

I never thought Monica Pearcon to be an elitist arrogant person, but that seem to be who she is. Even if you disagree you don't have to give a cold response like that, especially when you always on TV smiling a big sunny smile and doing all sorts of things for charity and attending Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church where she attends the 8 a.m. services.
Church is just a money making institution and a place where people find absolution for all their wrong doings and then go right back and keep breaking all God's laws!

I am beginning to understand now why some animal rights people insist that there is no debating with people who just don't get it. I guess I am new to this and still believe in fairy tales!

Greed and Vanity rule!

I am glad to hear that the First Lady is one of the more enlightened people who have given up wearing fur. Oprah as well. That's a good thing!

_________________________________You can email Monica at monica.pearson@wsbtv.com__________________

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was

a laws that was wrong and many people knew in their hearts that these laws were wrong, but you also had those that said... "Nothing wrong with having slaves. As long as it' s not illegal we can do what we want!"

Today people like this anchor person have the same attitude. Selfish wants and needs overrode any human thinking!

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An April 24, 1851 poster warning colored people in Boston about policemen acting as slave catchers.

The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slaveholding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. This was one of the most controversial acts of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a 'slave power conspiracy'. It declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters. Abolitionists nicknamed it the "Bloodhound Law" for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.

The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law which was written with the intention of enforcing Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.

Some Northern states passed "personal liberty laws", mandating a jury trial before alleged fugitive slaves could be moved. Otherwise, they feared free blacks could be kidnapped into slavery. Other states forbade the use of local jails or the assistance of state officials in the arrest or return of such fugitives. In some cases, juries simply refused to convict individuals who had been indicted under the Federal law. Moreover, locals in some areas actively fought attempts to seize fugitives and return them to the South. And everywhere that was not tied with slavery, abolitionists spoke against this.

The Missouri Supreme Court routinely held that voluntary transportation of slaves into free states, with the intent of residing there permanently or definitely, automatically made them free.^[1] The Fugitive Slave Law dealt with slaves who went into free states without their master's consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, greatly weakening the law of 1793.

In the response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations. ^[2]

In fact the Fugitive Slave Law brought the issue home to anti-slavery citizens in the North, since it made them and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. Even moderate abolitionists were now faced with the immediate choice of defying what they believed an unjust law or breaking with their own consciences and beliefs. The case of Anthony Burns fell under this statute.

The Fugitive Slave Act brought a defiant response from abolitionists. Reverend Luther Lee, pastor of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Syracuse, New York wrote in 1855:

“

I never would obey it. I had assisted thirty slaves to escape to Canada during the last month. If the authorities wanted anything of me, my residence was at 39 Onondaga Street. I would admit that and they could take me and lock me up in the Penitentiary on the hill; but if they did such a foolish thing as that I had friends enough on Onondaga County to level it to the ground before the next morning. The slaves could no longer take control over what they could never imagine.

”

This was far from empty rhetoric; several years before, in the famous Jerry Rescue, Syracuse abolitionists did free by force a fugitive slave who was about to be sent back into the South and successfully smuggled him to Canada.

In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover, and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover's recapture. Ultimately, in 1859 in Ableman v. Booth the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court.^[3][4]

Other opponents, such as African American leader Harriet Tubman, simply treated the law as just another complication in their activities. The most important reaction was making the neighboring country of Canada the main destination of choice for runaway slaves.

With the outbreak of the American Civil War, General Benjamin Butler justified refusing to return runaway slaves in accordance to this law because the Union and the Confederacy were at war: the slaves could be confiscated and set free as contraband of war. The North also argued that the Fugitive Slave Act only applied to the Union; the South had broken away, so the law did not apply to the Confederacy.

The Pitbull! Saving America's Dog Campaign

Cherry and Handsome Dan, together again

VICKtory Dogs:
Cherry and Handsome Dan Together Again

January 15, 2010 : 9:47 AM ET

Check out the two pals romping and playing from their days back at Best Friends. Watch the video.

He knew it was probably a long shot. But Paul, new dad to Vicktory dog Cherry, knew he had to try. He wanted to do something special for this big loveable dog who had come into his life. Paul wanted to let Cherry say hello to an old friend.

Paul has been a fan of Cherry’s since the very beginning (along with zillions of other people), long before he and his wife, Melissa, adopted him. And any fan of Cherry’s can tell you that Handsome Dan the Vicktory dog was one of Cherry’s best buds back at the sanctuary. Paul knew that Handsome Dan was in his own home already, yet he wondered if it would be possible to get them together for a play date..
continue HERE

Dogs like Cherry and Handsome Dan are often misunderstood. Learn more about how to end the myths and discrimination against pit-bull type dogs by becoming a fan of the Pit Bulls: Saving America’s Dog campaign.