Being a single parent to various 4 leggeds, I have considered what will happen to them should anything happen to me.  Since I have put them in my estate plan, I am at ease knowing they will be provided for.  Preplanning for your pet(s) not only gives you relief, but helps them to know you have taken care of their future needs should that be necessary.  Attorneys Earl H. Cohen, Marshall H. Tanick and  Jeffrey C. O’Brien from the Minneapolis law firm Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, PA have authored the following post to help you learn more about the importance of estate planning for pets.

When the infamous hotel operator Leona Helmsley – known to many as the “Queen of Mean” – died in 2007, she created a stir by leaving her Maltese, “Trouble” a $12 Million trust fund (courts later reduced the amount of the trust to $2 Million).  Ms. Helmsley’s actions received much coverage in the press, and most of it related to the apparent absurdity of leaving such a large amount of money to a pet.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century and now into the twenty-first century, the place our pets hold in society has dramatically changed.  Animals have gone from the barnyard, to the backyard, and now into the bedroom.  According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, more U.S. households have pets than children.

What does this mean for estate planning?  Was Leona Helmsley a trendsetter?  While leaving multi-millions to an animal might seem a bit excessive, the underlying point – taking steps within your estate plan to care for your pet after your death – is a critical one.  For the many pet owners that consider their pets as family members, providing for those pets within an estate plan is a significant consideration.

If you are a pet owner that wants to include provisions in your estate plan for your pet(s), it is not as simple as providing for children and you need to consult with an estate planning attorney who knows the proper planning method given your state of residence.  Why?  Because pets are considered under the common law as tangible personal property.  In other words, in the absence of a statutory provision stating otherwise, the law regards our pets as more akin to furniture, jewelry, etc., than children.  That strikes many pet owners as cold, but it is a reality that has to be dealt with if proper planning is to occur.

Because of pets’ status as tangible personal property, a direct bequeath (i.e., gift) to a pet is ineffective.  Pet owners therefore have three alternatives:

1. Forty states have adopted a form of “pet trust” via statute.  These trusts are created during the life of the owner and become effective when the owner is unable to care for their pet(s) or dies.  The trust names a trustee who will serve as the caregiver for the pet; the owner has to estimate the costs of care for the pets who will be the trust beneficiaries and that amount of money will be transferred to the trust.
2. For pet owners in states such as Minnesota which has not adopted a statutory pet trust provision, providing for pets is a bit more complicated, but is still feasible.  In these states, an owner can bequeath the pet and a sum of money to a specific individual within their will with the requirement that the individual care for the pet for the duration of the pet’s life.  The language of the bequest in the will should specify that if the individual receiving the pet and the money is unable or unwilling to care for the pet, or if the pet has predeceased its owner, then the gift is null and void.  If you pursue this alternative, the gift should be accompanied with a set of instructions to the individual as to your desires for the pet’s care and, of course, you should consult with the individual prior to naming him or her within your will.  And remember that bequest should include the pet’s paraphernalia including bed, other furniture and toys.
3. A third method is to bequest a sum of money to an organization which is committed to find a home for the pet; a pet owner pays for the pet’s care with a minimum endowment to the organization which can vary based upon the age of the owner, the age of the pet and the size of the pet.

Far from being a laughing matter, estate planning for pet owners is serious business.  Providing for your pet within your estate plan gives you piece of mind that your beloved animal companion will receive the same level of love, affection and care after your life as it did during your life.

The authors are attorneys with the law firm of Mansfield, Tanick & Cohen, P.A. in Minneapolis and St. Paul. They can be reached at (612) 339-4295 or through their website.

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Talk2theAnimals Blog

My friends over at Reiki Fur Babies recently published a thoughtful and timely post detailing their experiences with people being less than kind to their pets.  It’s an excellent post, I invite you to read it in its entirety.

I have posted in the past on Anthropomorphism and Animal Communication.  I truly believe most people act in a “power over”  way with animals because they don’t know how to be in a “power with” relationship with animals. To my way of thinking, learning to be in a “power with” relationship is an educational process, which is one of the reasons why I am so dedicated to daily publications on the Talk2theAnimals Blog.  I believe when we treat others, including animals, rocks, stones and trees, etc, the way we want to be treated, we are well on our way to developing a “power with” relationship.

What are your thoughts on the matter?  Leave your comments, let’s get a good discussion going!

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

Recently at a coffee shop I discovered a small, local magazine about pets.  As I sipped my coffee, I read through the magazine.  It had interesting articles and tips such as bathing your dog and adding a new dog to the family.  The last page had a quiz, asking how well your pet has trained you.

I took the short quiz, only 10 questions.  As I was marking down my answers, I was congratulating myself on how well I listened to my pets.

One question asked when my dog goes to the door, do I immediately let him out?  That was a definite yes.  That’s the way Emmie tells me she needs to go potty, and Teddy is of the age that when he needs to go, he needs to go.

Do my dogs tell me when they want to be fed?  You betcha!

Do I take the toy when Emmie brings it over to play?  I do if I can; she’s telling me she wants to play.  If I don’t have the time, she has to wait.

The only answers were yes, no and sometimes.  10 points for every yes, 1 point for every no and 5 points for every sometimes.  I totaled my score, which was quite high,  thinking I had nailed the quiz, and did a great job with my dogs.

Unfortunately, the test didn’t agree with me.  The lower the score, the better.  A perfect score was 10, or 1 point ~ or no ~ for every question.  Oops.

Driving home, I reflected on the quiz.  The quiz had been developed by someone who thinks differently than I do about our relationship with animals.  In my opinion, the quiz reflected a “power over” relationship: humans are the boss, the animal is expected to do our biding.  I believe in a “power with”  relationship: working in concert with the animal to develop a relationship that works for all.  Yes, dogs always know where their teeth are and how to use them; cats scratch and bite, horses kick and bite.  Even with that, I believe, that except for extenuating circumstances, we can co-exist with the animals.

The quiz author and I are at different ends of the animal/human relationship spectrum.  Does this make one of us right and the other wrong?  Is there a way the two different philosophies can co-exist?

I’d like to hear your thoughts about this.  Leave your comments and ideas, let’s get a good discussion going!

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

Bear with me while I stroll down memory lane for awhile.  When I was a very young child, Zippy the Chimp was all the rage.  I had my own stuffed Zippy, whom I dearly loved and toted with me everywhere.  I also had the Zippy the Chimp Golden Book, well loved, well worn and well read.  I don’t remember if the Cowboy Zippy pictured above was in the Golden Book, but I do remember seeing that picture a lot.

Fast forward a couple of decades.  I was in Missouri visiting the St. Louis Zoo.  I happened to be in The Monkey House (or whatever it was called at that time) and witnessed a baby chimp in diapers in his glass cage playing peek-a-boo with a human toddler.  This game went on for quite awhile, much to the entertainment of all the human folks in the area.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago.  I was watching the news when a story came on, complete with video, of an elderly lady whose pet chimp attacked a friend.  The chimp blew up, attacked the friend, sending her to the hospital.  His human companion was stabbing him with a butcher knife and attacking him with a shovel before calling 911.  The 14 year old chimp, Travis, was eventually shot and killed.

Not a pretty story.  Certainly this was not MY beloved Zippy the Chimp I grew up with.

Later I read a commentary in the local StarTribune Paper written by British anthropologist Jane Goodall.  The title?  “Sorry – Not A Pet.”  The New York Times also did a piece about this.  It was in the Home and Garden section of the paper, Living Together, and entitled “My Monkey, My Self.”

My question for you: how the heck did we get to the point where The New York Times writes a piece entitled “My Monkey, My Self?”  Or that a grown chimp lived with a widow, wore human clothes, ate ice cream and lobster at the dinner table, played with a computer and watched TV?

Did my beloved Zippy the Chimp have something to do in bringing us to this place of being?

I find it quite interesting that in the opening paragraph of this post I used the term “all the rage.”  I never use that phrase.  Could it be that the chimps/primates/animals are enraged that we humans think we are connecting with them when we take them from their natural state and attempt to turn them into human clones?  What does that say about our own humanity when incidents like this occur?

I’m an animal communicator.  I Talk2theAnimals.  They are animals, not humans.  They are animals who have their own code of existence, their own way of being, their own law of nature, their own Circle of Life.  I respect that and honor that as much as I can.  They are animals.

Perhaps the world would be a different place if we humans met the animals where they are in their existence, instead of expecting them to become “civilized” into our existence.  Perhaps the world would be a different place if we humans began to learn from the animals, instead of expecting them to always “learn” from us.  Perhaps the world would be a different place if we humans had the courage to look deep inside ourselves, get to know ourselves and be willing to grow and change ourselves for the better, instead of expecting Zippy the Chimp to make us better.

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

We All Do Better when All Creatures Do Better

The recent post on Bear Baiting and Bear Dancing created quite a stir as you can see from the comments. Not only did I receive comments on the blog, I received them on my Twitter and FaceBook pages.

While searching online, I found some organizations that are helping these bears.  You can even sign a petition to stop this treatment.  Take a moment to check into these links:

• ASPCA
• WSPA
• The Petition Site

Each small step we take will help rebalance our relationship with these animals.  I commend you for doing what you can for the bears.

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

Posts for the Talk2theAnimals blog can be created through the most unusual of ways.  For instance, this post.  Last night as I was reading the New York Times online,  I ran across an article on President Obama and the stimulus package.  I clicked through to the article, and out of the corner of my eye I saw a dog leap at the throat of a chained bear.  It was a video made by the WSPA on bear baiting.  So much for President Obama and the stimulus package.

We All Do Better When All Creatures Do Better

To be exact, I have rewritten this post 3,246 times in my head since last night.  Even with all those rewrites, the only thing I know for certain is:

We All Do Better When All Creatures Do Better

Bear baiting is when a bear is tethered and two dogs are allowed to attack it.  In bear dancing, a bear is “dancing” to get away from the pain.   A “dancing” bear is caught as a baby, his teeth and claws are ripped out, a burning poker is forced through his nose, and then a rope is pulled through the wound. Should the mother go to protect her baby ~ as all mothers tend to do ~ she is killed.

This video shows what happens in bear baiting and bear dancing.  Here’s a write up from the WSPA on bear baiting and here’s another WSPA article on bear dancing.

Bear baiting and bear dancing exist in our world today.  That’s a fact, it can not be denied. Now that this action to a fellow creature has been brought to my consciousness (via President Obama and the stimulus package), what am I called to do about it?

As each one of you reads this post, watches the video, reads the information from the WSPA, and perhaps even does further research into this practice, what are you called to do about it?

Wouldn’t it be lovely if this behavior was stopped simply because we wanted it stopped?  Wouldn’t it be a marvelous Valentine’s Day present for bears and humans alike if this treatment stopped on 2/14/09?

Chances are that won’t happen; it’s too big, too ingrained, there are too many levels of complication to be solved in one week.

We are all connected, what affects one creature affects another creature.  All creatures have the right to a good, harmonious life.

Now we reach the heart of the problem, at least for me.  This issue is too big for me to think of it in terms of connection because I can’t conceive of doing this to another creature.  For me to even begin to find my way through this labyrinth of thought, I need to go into dualistic thinking.

Dualistic thinking is either/or-, black/white-, good/evil-thinking.  A component usually found in dualistic thinking is judgment.  Yet while I may be temporarily using dualistic thinking, I am choosing not to use judgment.  My experience has taught me there can be a fine line between observation and judgment.

We All Do Better When All Creatures Do Better

All creatures doing better extends to the people who are involved with the bear baiting and bear dancing, including those in the audiences.

From my perspective, I can neither judge nor condemn the people involved in these actions, because by judging and condemning them I move myself, my feelings, into a place of chaos, blame, shame and power-over.  When I am invested in power-over, “I’m better than you because I don’t bear bait,” I add to the already existing pool of division, exclusion and chaos.  That solves nothing, simply adds more chaos to an already chaotic situation.

I choose to act from a place of inclusion, not division; harmony, not judgment.  Bear baiting and bear dancing exist in this world AND I can address it from a place of peace.  That doesn’t mean I accept it, condone it or agree with it or can even stomach it.  It means I select to act from a place of solution.

For me, what does it mean to address bear baiting and dancing from a place of solution?  I have been told over and over again, by animals and humans, that my job is to speak for those who are not heard.  So I am writing this post.  I believe with all my heart and soul that there is a solution to this problem and there are people out there who can solve it and are already working toward an answer that benefits all, including the people involved with this.  I may not be “doing” anything to solve the problem of bear baiting and dancing, but I am changing the energy that surrounds it.

On a simpler and more basic note, I have a gypsy jazz CD which has a picture of a bear “dancing” on the liner notes.  I’m disposing of that picture.

I invite you to join me in bringing this treatment to our fellow creatures to an end.  Please leave your comments and comments.

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

This post will not be everyone’s cup of tea, some people may feel uncomfortable, some people may be shocked, some people may be angry.

I’m OK with that.

For the sake of the animals, the topic of compassion needs to be brought to the table and discussed openly and honestly.  Is there such a thing as too much compassion?  When is compassion not a good thing?

Here’s there definition of compassion from my online dictionary:

compassion |kəmˈpa sh ən|
noun
sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others : the victims should be treated with compassion. See note at mercy.
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from ecclesiastical Latin compassio(n-), from compati ‘suffer with.’

I can’t help but notice that the words victims and compassion are used in the same sentence above.

Growing up, I learned the term “bleeding-heart compassion.”  Most of us are taught compassion from an early age.  We are taught compassion is a good quality to have, to display, to use.  We are taught when we are compassionate, we consider the sufferings of others as our own.

Bollocks.

My suffering is not another creature’s, another creature’s suffering is not mine.

When I take on another’s suffering as my own, I am diluting and dissipating the strengths, talents and abilities I have that can help.  When, “out of compassion,”  I allow my strengths and abilities to be weakened, I am no help to the creature, and I am certainly no help to myself.  I may even be crippling myself.  Crippling myself does no one any good.

Do you remember times when you have been compassionate with someone, animal or human, you have been past exhausted and the situation was no better, possibly even worse?  Your exhaustion is a symptom you either gave your energy away or you allowed it to be taken form you.

It is not possible to give enough of yourself away to make someone or something better.

My job as an animal communicator is to keep myself clean, clear and free of anything that stands between me and listening to the animals.  That means I need to be selfish enough to keep my energy my own, and not allow it to leak out or be siphoned off.  I cannot afford to have “bleeding heart compassion” if I want to help and to be effective with the animals.  Currently I do not work directly with lost animals because I lose too much of my energy to be effective.  The way I help with lost animals is to refer the person to communicators who are able to remain detached and who are experts at finding lost animals.

I invite you to think of compassion in terms of “fierce compassion.”  At first glance, this may seem an anomaly, but it is not.  To me, fierce compassion means when I help animals I am coming from a healthy place of strength, fitness and stamina.  I use my skills and my energy to help them to the best of my ability, without becoming entrenched in their experience.  Their experience is not my experience.  Should I find myself becoming too involved, too compassionate, it is time for me to step back, clear myself, take a break if needed.  After I have taken care of myself and have returned to the animal, I am refreshed and more able and capable of helping and being of value to the animal.

I look forward to hearing your comments on this!

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

That question popped into my mind the other day: “When is a pet not a pet?”  It was quickly followed by, “What exactly is a pet?” and “Who are we humans to make pets of other species?”

Nice reflective questions for a cold MN afternoon.

I started my search to discover what exactly a pet is and how a “pet” is perceived by humans.  Definitions I found online included: “A domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility” and “an animal kept for amusement or companionship.”

Synchronistically, one of my cousins sent me a link to a site showing a virtual dog.  You type in the commands, and the dog does whatever you ask.

Maybe the cold has numbed my mind, maybe I’m up on a soapbox, but I began to be bothered by phrases such as “kept for pleasure” and “kept for amusement.”  The human’s pleasure and amusement?…The animal’s pleasure and amusement?  Where’s the animal’s say on all of this?  When a creature is “kept” by another creature doesn’t that automatically make the first creature subservient to the second creature?  Wouldn’t the creature that is kept inevitably become low “dog” on the totem pole?

Don’t get me wrong.  Heaven knows I have had and continue to have more than my fair share of pets.  Yesterday I attended a WIN Networking luncheon and decided not to wear my new black suit because of all the hair and hay particles it would collect in the house and in the car-which-is-really-the-barn-buggy.

The people I know, both in reality and virtually, love their pets dearly and their pets are their companions, valued family members.  These people do everything they can to ensure their beloved pet has everything s/he needs for a comfortable life.

Recently Teddy, Emmie and I were at the dog park and Teddy met a new dog pal.  His “mom” and I began walking and talking together, and I mentioned I communicate with animals.  She began telling me about a former family dog they had which they eventually ended up returning to the shelter.  Even though this happened a while back, you could tell she was still troubled by the situation.  The dog, who was large and a mix of agreeable breeds, started staring the family down and snapping at them.  The family was quite naturally concerned about this, so they immediately called the shelter and spoke to a trainer for advice.  The advice was to roll the dog over on her back into a submissive position and hover over her so she would know the human was the “top dog.”  This did not work so the dog was returned to the shelter, where she was most probably euthanized.

Many thoughts tumbled through my mind as I listened to the story.  What if the dog was not feeling well and was telling them the best way she knew how?  What if she was in pain?  Was she mirroring back a family situation that needed attention?  Was this dog and family were simply not compatible?

Animals are animals, dogs are dogs.  As someone once told me, a dog always knows where their teeth are and knows how to use them.  We need to keep ourselves safe and there are certainly times when, for whatever reason, the animal and the people are not a match, or there are extenuating circumstances and different arrangements, which are in the best interest of all, need to be made.

But do we need to come to this decision simply through power over?  What would happen if we treat the animal with respect and as an equal, since it is another sentient being?

I don’t have “the answer” to this.  To me it’s far too complicated for me, or you, or one organization to have “the answer.”  I do believe, however, that each individual who “keeps” pets is called to look deeply into themselves to discover whether the relationship is one of “power over” or “power with.”  I think it is also important to discern why the relationship is like it is.  Is it something you and the animal have forged together or is it one that has been recommended to you by an outside source?  If it’s one recommended by an outside source, do you feel comfortable with the results or do you follow the suggestion out of guilt, or perhaps because you were told to do that, or perhaps because lots of money was spent for a solution?

Relationship, whether with the same species or interspecies, calls for close scrutiny of ourselves and our motives.  As we get to know ourselves better, we are then able to forge deeper relationships with all.

I realized this post has raised more questions than it has addressed.  Please leave your thoughts, comments or questions on this topic.

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

I recently wrote a post on Animals and Right to Life.  One of the comments brought tears to my eyes.  With Billie Dean’s permission, I am using her comment as today’s post.  At the end of the post you will see her contact information.  Feel free to leave your comment after reading this!

Hi Janet,

My animal loving husband and partner found this wonderful blog and invited me to read it this morning because I am an Australian animal communicator, shaman, writer and film maker, and mostly an animal advocate.  Getting a better deal for animals informs all my work.

I believe the problem lies at the top of the food chain, and current education doesn’t even begin to address this.  If we stopped killing animals as if they were worthless, if we stopped having euthanasia in pounds, if it were illegal to take a beloved horse to end his days as dog food, then we would see it filtering down to the rest of society. Everyone would KNOW that an animal’s life meant something.  And we would see it making a difference.

I have started a campaign to end euthanasia of HEALTHY animals, and it is bigger than this.  In Germany no homeless animal is allowed to be killed.  If they can do this, so can the rest of the world.  I’ve worked in rescue for over 20 years.  What I’ve seen has left me with a dim view of humanity.  But I am now encouraging people to only focus on the good of people and to visualise or dream in a world where animals and people can live in sacred harmony.  Focus on what we want, so we create this into being, according to spiritual laws that make up our universe.

Our group started just before Christmas.  It is open to anyone who wants to make a difference to the world of animals. I live with about 60, now, of society’s rejects who I have given a forever home to.  And if I’ve learned anything, it is that rescue isn’t the answer.  Nothing has changed in 20 years.  Rescue is a bottomless pit.  And those rejects are souls who are dependent on humanity’s compassion and kindness.  We give our murderers a better deal than we give animals who are simply homeless or who have been abused.  People abuse them again and again because they don’t see them with respect and reverence.

We need to get rid of the concept of kill shelters and give animals a shelter FOR LIFE if they need it.  We need people to understand that animals are really teachers and healers.  And that their silent language  can be heard if only people learn to listen.

www.alllifeisprecious.ning.com is our new community for change for animals through practical work as well as meditation and shamanic dreaming.  www.billiedean.com is my website.  I’ve made two films Finding Joy and Seven Days with Seven Dogs (available from my website) which in a fun way try to encourage people to see animals differently.  Now I have written books soon to be published.  It’s time to change things for animals and I welcome every bit of like-minded community to make the change happen on every level.  We need to make an international net.

As a psychic communicator I have been told by the animals they are finished suffering for humanity.  It’s time WE changed as a species, and it’s time we understood how connected we all are.

Thank you for your blog.  And thank you from my heart for allowing me the space to put my views here.  From a shamanic perspective, the world isn’t going to heal until we start  understanding our true connection to nature and animals.  The pain in people is the pain of animals and nature and the pain of our disconnection from them.  There is a path forward and I talk about it in my books and in my new film This Sacred Earth.  All these are currently self funded — this is the depth of our commitment.

Thank you for caring!

Billie Dean

About the Author: Billie Dean is an author, filmmaker, shaman and animal communicator who works as an animal advocate and with her husband, Andrew, runs Ballyoncree Animal Sanctuary, a forever home for abused and abandoned animals.  Billie launched the For Life Campaign to end death row in pounds and the senseless killing of healthy dogs, cats and horses.   Coming from a background of journalism, comedy and natural healing, she and Andrew are committed to social change through uplifting and inspirational books and films — http://www.billiedean.com, http://www.laughinowl.com.au Watch out for Secret Animal Business and This Sacred Earth — out soon!

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog

We All Do Better When All Creatures Do Better

FYI: This post is not about yuletide carols and holiday cheer.  While you may not want to read any further, I invite you to keep reading.  There is important information below.  Your comments, thoughts and ideas are very much welcomed.

Actually, I’ve been debating for awhile about writing this post.  I kept thinking ‘When is a good time to write about animals and their right to life?’.  I didn’t want to depress anyone around the holidays. Finally, I decided there is no time like the present to broach this topic.

It seems lately a lot of heartbreaking and depressing stories about human treatment of animals have found their way to me.  The local MN TV stations have been covering a story about a young golden retriever who was shot twice and left for dead at the side of the road in this frigid weather.  Thousands and thousands of horses are dying.  From two colleagues I have heard about animals being skinned alive for their fur.  The fur is fresher that way.  The soon-to-be carcasses are thrown into a pile and can still be alive for another ten minutes.

I don’t know what to say, where to begin.  I get lost in the murky areas of torture, abuse, neglect.  I get further disorientated regarding how lack of economics and education play a part in this, as well as power, might and violence.  I can’t imagine, I simply cannot imagine, what pain a person must be in themselves to inflict this on another living, sentient creature.

This morning I was listening to NPR’s This I Believe.  Dr. Paul Farmer wrote this morning’s essay. The honesty and frankness of his words both touched me and left me heavy hearted.  While Dr. Farmer is addressing the health needs of humans, I see it as appropriate for animals also. Below is a portion of what he said.  To see the entire essay, click here. The words in parenthesis are mine.

As heard on NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday, December 21, 2008.

I know it’s not enough to attend only to the immediate needs of the patient (animal) in front of me. We must also call attention to the failures and inadequacy of our own best efforts. The goal of preventing human (animal) suffering must be linked to the task of bringing others, many others, into a movement for basic rights.

I move uneasily between the obligation to intervene and the troubling knowledge that much of the work we do, praised as “humanitarian” or “charitable,” does not always lead us closer to our goal. That goal is nothing less than the refashioning of our world into one in which no one (creature) starves, drinks impure water, lives in fear of the powerful and violent, or dies ill and unattended.

To put in my own words, We All Do Better When All Creatures Do Better.

In the book Altruistic Armadillos, Zenlike Zebras, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson comments about beetles that ‘they are living beings who have as much right to their existence as we have to ours’. (p. 23)

I would like to take Masson’s comment a step further and apply that to all animals, insects, any sentient being.  I’m also going to add to that comment: ‘they are living beings who have only as much right to their existence as we have to ours’.

Perspectives will begin to change when it is realized that animals have as much a prerogative and birthright to their lives as you and I do.  This I Believe.

Harmony,

Janet Roper

Back to the Blog