Student cuddles with Bill (Photo: with permission of Nina Keck/Vermont Public Radio)

By Katerina Lorenzatos Makris

With Halloween just a day or so away, and a “monster” storm bearing down on the northeastern United States, a small school in Vermont is reportedly about to commit an act that, for many animal advocates, will add yet another macabre note to the week.

Green Mountain College, which specializes in what it calls “environmental liberal arts,” plans to slaughter Bill and Lou, two amiable oxen who have worked at the college’s farm for a decade. Then they will serve students the animals’ flesh.

Animal Issues Reporter interviewed the college’s Director of Communications Kevin Coburn via email, as follows.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Dear Mr. Coburn -

I’m a reporter for Animal Issues Reporter.org and for Animal Policy Examiner on Examiner.com, and am writing an article about the Bill and Lou controversy. After reading the Oct. 12 college statement on the matter, a few questions remain.

Below please find quotes from the college statement in [bold]. My questions follow each quote.

1) “We work to maintain high ethical standards for treatment of the land, people and animals.”

Does the farm and college have any sort of published code or statement regarding its standards for treatment of animals?

If not, could you describe or summarize those standards?

2) “A transition to a new setting will be difficult for them, and only postpones the fact that someone else, in the not-too-distant future, will need to decide that it is kinder to kill them than to have them continue in increasing discomfort.”

About how much longer would you predict Bill and Lou might live if they weren’t slaughtered now?

Does Bill have health problems too?  If so what are they?

If Bill is NOT facing serious health issues, would it be an option to allow him to go to the sanctuary that’s offering to take them?

Why do you feel the transition to the sanctuary would be difficult for the oxen?

3) “We have draft animals on the farm because they do important work which would otherwise be performed by equipment that consumes diesel fuel.” Also the college statement mentioned that Bill and Lou “consume resources at a significant rate.”

Would you discuss or point me to the research showing that the environmental impact of draft animals is less than that of using diesel fuel?

4) “Bill and Lou came to us nearly ten years ago as malnourished and neglected animals. At GMC they received considerate and humane care.”

Could you elaborate a little on that? Where were Bill and Lou obtained? Why were they malnourished and neglected? Was their previous owner prosecuted for the neglect?

Were Bill and Lou purchased, or were they seized from a neglect situation? In either case, given the state they were in, it sounds as if they were essentially “rescued.”  Would you agree with that?

5) “We delayed making any decision over the summer and held an open community forum on October 4 to discuss the ethics of sending draft animals to slaughter, and Bill and Lou’s case specifically.”

What are the ethics pro and con of sending draft animals to slaughter?  Is this typically done?

Are most students at Green Mountain in favor of or against the slaughter and consumption of Bill and Lou?  Was there any sort of official poll or vote taken?

Some commenters on FB, etc. say they find it disturbing that any students would want to eat friendly animals they knew as pets or mascots at the college.  Do you find that concept troubling at all?

What percentage of students at Green Mountain are vegan?  How many are vegetarian?

6) “While many of our students are vegan or vegetarian, many also eat meat, and we strive to meet the dietary preferences of all students. Bill and Lou, when processed for meat, will yield over one ton of beef. If this meat doesn’t come from our animals, it likely will come from a factory farm setting which carries with it a significant amount of ecological impact. For example, the American agricultural system uses approximately 5 million gallons of water to produce the same amount of beef (not to mention greenhouse gas production, soil erosion, and water pollution).”

Does your food services department regularly purchase and serve animal products such as meats, dairy, eggs, sea life, etc.?

If, despite the environmental and sustainability problems cited in the statement, the college purchases, produces, and serves animal products from the “American agricultural system,” or even from smaller family farms, or from its own farm, mightn’t the college perhaps be seen as hypocritical for continuing to consume large amounts of animal products—thereby contributing to environmental and sustainability problems—while at the same time slaughtering and eating two of its working animals on the grounds that their existence creates environmental and sustainability problems?

7) “As a sustainable farm, we can’t just consider the responsible stewardship of the resources within our boundaries, but of all the earth’s resources.”

Some might argue that if Green Mountain genuinely espoused this ethic, the college would cease to consume animal products altogether, especially in light of its statement that animals used for food carry a “significant amount of ecological impact” such as water waste and pollution, greenhouse gases, and soil erosion. The argument might be made that the college is applying its sustainability ethic only when convenient, so as satisfy students who wish to consume animals products, and that Bill and Lou are being sacrificed on the altar of the college making a point to which it does not closely adhere elsewhere in its operations.

What would be your response?

Would there be any possibility of the college going vegan so as to no longer consume the animal products which it has stated cause environmental and sustainability problems?

Do you worry about the PR involved in this controversy?  That perhaps it makes the college look heartless to slaughter and eat Bill and Lou for the sake of an environmental principle?  Many might ask if there couldn’t be some wiggle room and a reprieve granted to two animals who appear to have faithfully served the college for a decade, and who seem gentle and friendly enough to be frequently hugged and kissed. To some observers it might seem harsh to slaughter them when they are no longer useful, as opposed to accepting the offer of the rescue group who is willing to provide them with a comfortable retirement. Comments?

Many thanks for your time, Mr. Coburn.

Best regards,

Katerina

Response from Kevin Coburn – October 22, 2012

Hello Katerina—I’ve asked our Farm and food staff for more information on the circumstances of Lou and Bill’s introduction to the farm. Not sure I can address all your questions separately but I’ll start by posing one myself: Is it permissible to serve meat in a college dining hall in 2012?

If the answer is “yes” than it seems the criticism directed at Green Mountain College, a small liberal arts school that is seriously wrestling with issues of animal ethics, is misplaced or entirely out of proportion when juxtaposed with an agricultural landscape dominated by factory farms—places where animals have no identity or rights at all.

In answer to the question (not merely rhetorical), Green Mountain College has many vegans and vegetarians on campus–I would say a larger proportion than most schools. We also have many students who eat meat. We have an obligation to meet the dietary needs of all students. If it is permissible to eat meat, than where should that meat come from? Here, most vegans and omnivores agree that that if we eat meat it should be from animals that have been well-cared for and locally raised. (When we first began to raise animals on our campus farm about 10 years ago, vegans and vegetarians on our farm crew helped us understand it was important to for meat-eaters to have know the animals as much as possible).

It’s been fashionable to describe Bill and Lou as “pets” or “mascots”—this in not the case. They are working animals doing important work on our farm, which is conducting a long-term ecological research project on how to limit fossil fuels in agriculture. We heat hot water on the farm through solar power (hence the solar panels on our barn roof). We heat our greenhouses with solar-heated water coils at the root level, instead of electric heaters. We use oxen to hay and plow fields because we believe this is a more sustainable practice than using diesel powered tractors. Our research is leading to promising ways small-scale family farmers in a challenging climate can reduce costs and meet their long-term energy needs. See http://www.greenmtn.edu/farm_food.aspx for some background.

Our students who study and volunteer on the farm are confronted with the same dilemmas confronted by small farmers every day. The majority of our students also are familiar with animal rights and animal liberation literature—works by Tom Regan and Peter Singer, among others, are offered in our environmental ethics course. We have an animal studies minor and regularly offer a course in animal ethics.

All options for Bill and Lou were considered in our deliberations including sending them to a sanctuary. In the end we decided that the morally preferable alternative was processing them for meat, for reasons clearly outlined in our statement. We believe if there is any hope of transitioning away from industrialized factory farming and bringing democracy back into our food system, it depends more upon rich community dialogue than single-minded activism.

October 23, 2012

Dear Mr. Coburn,

Thanks so much for getting back to me with this info. You hit most of the points and I appreciate your taking the time.

I think there are just a few questions still outstanding, below. Hope you’ll have a few more minutes to go ahead and address these as well?

1) “We work to maintain high ethical standards for treatment of the land, people and animals.”

Does the farm and college have any sort of published code or statement regarding its standards for treatment of animals?

If not, could you describe or summarize those standards?

2) “A transition to a new setting will be difficult for them, and only postpones the fact that someone else, in the not-too-distant future, will need to decide that it is kinder to kill them than to have them continue in increasing discomfort.”

About how much longer would you predict Bill and Lou might live if they weren’t slaughtered now?

Does Bill have health problems too?  If so what are they?

If Bill is NOT facing serious health issues, would it be an option to allow him to go to the sanctuary that’s offering to take them?

3) “While many of our students are vegan or vegetarian, many also eat meat, and we strive to meet the dietary preferences of all students. Bill and Lou, when processed for meat, will yield over one ton of beef. If this meat doesn’t come from our animals, it likely will come from a factory farm setting which carries with it a significant amount of ecological impact. For example, the American agricultural system uses approximately 5 million gallons of water to produce the same amount of beef (not to mention greenhouse gas production, soil erosion, and water pollution).”

If, despite the environmental and sustainability problems cited in the statement, the college purchases, produces, and serves animal products from the “American agricultural system,” or even from smaller family farms, or from its own farm, mightn’t the college perhaps be seen as hypocritical for continuing to consume large amounts of animal products—thereby contributing to environmental and sustainability problems—while at the same time slaughtering and eating two of its working animals on the grounds that their continued existence creates environmental and sustainability problems?

4) “As a sustainable farm, we can’t just consider the responsible stewardship of the resources within our boundaries, but of all the earth’s resources.”

Some might argue that if Green Mountain genuinely espoused this ethic, the college would cease to consume animal products altogether, especially in light of its statement that animals used for food carry a “significant amount of ecological impact” such as water waste and pollution, greenhouse gases, and soil erosion. The argument might be made that the college is applying its sustainability ethic only when convenient, so as satisfy students who wish to consume animals products, and that Bill and Lou are being sacrificed on the altar of the college making a point to which it does not closely adhere elsewhere in its operations.

What would be your response?

Would there be any possibility of the college going vegan so as to no longer consume the animal products which it has stated cause environmental and sustainability problems?

Do you worry about the PR involved in this controversy?  That perhaps it makes the college look heartless to slaughter and eat Bill and Lou for the sake of an environmental principle?  Many might ask if there couldn’t be some wiggle room and a reprieve granted to two animals who appear to have faithfully served the college for a decade, and who seem gentle and friendly enough to be frequently hugged and kissed. To some observers it might seem harsh to slaughter them when they are no longer useful, as opposed to accepting the offer of the rescue group who is willing to provide them with a comfortable retirement. Comments?

Many thanks for your time.

Best regards,

Katerina

As of yet there’s been no response from Mr. Coburn after several attempts  to reach him via email and telephone, or from other college authorities including provost and vice president of academic affairs William Throop and college president Paul J. Fonteyn.

Get fresh AIR! Hit the ‘Follow’ button above to be notified via email of new articles.

Katerina Lorenzatos Makris is a career journalist, author, and editor. Credits include hundreds of articles for regional wire services and for  outlets such as National Geographic Traveler, The San Francisco Chronicle, Travelers’ Tales, NBC’s Petside.com, and Examiner.com (Animal Policy Examiner), a teleplay for CBS-TV, a short story for The Bark magazine, and 17 novels for Avon, E.P. Dutton, Simon and Schuster, and other major publishers.

Together with coauthor Shelley Frost, Katerina wrote a step-by-step guide for hands-on, in-the-trenches dog rescue, Your Adopted Dog: Everything You Need to Know About Rescuing and Caring for a Best Friend in Need (The Lyons Press).

Please respect copyright law. Sharing AIR links really helps! But copying more than a couple of paragraphs of content without permission is a no-no. If you’d like to use one of AIR’s articles or one of our photographs, kindly contact us at [airinfo AT yahoo DOT com].

Copyright © 2012 Animal Issues Reporter and AnimalIssuesReporter.org.
All rights reserved.