How Would You Save Luna?

Last weekend, I watched a compelling documentary that I haven't been able to get off my mind. It brought up a lot of questions for me about humans relationship with wild animals, and where/if we should draw the line.

Saving Luna follows the story of a lonely orca whale who was either lost or abandoned by his pod in a logging bay off the coast of Nova Scotia. Clearly yearning for social contact, Luna approached the boats, impressing everyone with his chutzpah. He would nose right up to them and nod his head encouragingly for pats, and even play tug of war or fetch with cedar sticks he found floating in the water. He also enjoyed being sprayed with water or getting his tongue rubbed. When the summer visitors came to the bay, Luna became the center of attention and seemed to revel in his popularity.

Soon, people became worried about Luna—for his own safety and the safety of others. Because he swam so close to the boats, what if he unintentionally knocked over a kayak or got too close to a boat's propeller? The question of what to do about Luna became one that divided the Department of Fisheries, First Nation leaders, marine biologists, tourists, politicians, and anyone else who had met the baby whale.

The Canadian Department of Fisheries thought that human contact would just encourage Luna to stay in the bay and pose a risk to himself and the summer tourists. However, when one group wanted to relocate Luna to the area where his pod might be, officials were skeptical that this would even work and denied permission. Instead, they told people to ignore Luna for his own good or recieve a hefty fine. This policy was impossible to enforce, as many saw how much Luna craved interaction and thought it cruel to deprive him of it. Officials dismissed this as anthropomorphizing. For years, no one could agree and Luna remained in the waters of Nova Scotia seeking social contact, but sometimes meeting up with the wrong people. One man threatened to shoot him when he discovered his fishing boat was damaged.

Interestingly, Saving Luna does not take sides. When asked what the message of his documentary is, filmmaker Michael Parfit said:

"A lot of people ask Suzanne and me that. But we don’t think of SAVING LUNA as a message film. It’s a story film. It isn’t trying to tell people what to think. We made it because we went through an amazing story with a wonderful character, and we want everybody to experience the story and get to know the character."

What do you think about the barrier between humans and wild animals? Is it ever ok to cross the line? How would you have saved Luna?

Look for the Leaping Bunny!

As a vegan, I try to live my life in such a way that does not harm animals, or any living beings for that matter. So, not only do I refrain from eating them, I also refrain from buying products that contain animal bits and pieces, or which were tested on animals themselves.

Every year, millions of animals are used to assess the safety of everyday products like lipstick, shampoo, laundry detergent, and household cleaners. The actual number of animals is unknown because U.S. research facilities don’t have to report their use of birds, rats, mice, fish, and other cold blooded animals. Interestingly, these are the most frequently used animals because they are small, cheap, and considered ‘lower on the totem pole’ than dogs, cats, and non-human primates. Compiling data from other countries that report ALL species used, and calculations from insiders who work in laboratory facilities, it is estimated that birds, rats, mice, and fish represent roughly 95 percent of the animals used in research. And they are not afforded even the minimum care as required by the Animal Welfare Act.

Animal studies are rooted in the ancient contradiction that because animals are like humans, they make biologically sound research subjects; but because animals are not like humans, they make ethically just research subjects. This just doesn’t make sense, and even if you think it does, the number of viable alternatives available today make it a moot point. We don’t need to test on animals. Why?

1. We are not small and furry, nor do we have fins or tails.
2. We will probably never be stuck inside a sealed container and forced to breathe chemicals for 28 days straight, or have our eyelids held open for 14 days while corrosive material is dropped into our eyes, or any of the other ridiculous tests that are preformed on animals. I hope someone would take us to the doctor instead of just letting us linger in pain.
3. Alternative testing methods are available that use computer databases, human cadavers, or real human skin cells, which are much more relevant to humans than data gleaned from guinea pigs.

The European Union recently banned animal testing for cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients, and a similar ban for household products is in the works. While we don’t have that going for us in the U.S., we do have a snazzy program called Leaping Bunny, which certifies cosmetic, personal care, and household product companies as “cruelty-free” if they don’t test their products or ingredients on animals. Companies that meet these requirements can put the Leaping Bunny Logo on their packages.

Although there are other cruelty-free shopping lists out there, this is the one that I truly trust, because companies are required to collect forms from their ingredient suppliers and contract manufacturers that no animal testing is occurring on their behalf; they also have to recommit annually to the program and open themselves up to independent audits to assure their compliance.

Unfortunately not all of the companies listed are vegan (i.e., some use animal derived ingredients in their products) but this information can be figured out easily enough by looking at ingredient lists and seeing if there’s anything fishy (or cow-y, bumble bee-y, goat-y, etc.).

One of my favorite cheap companies on the list is Nature's Gate. But there are over 250 others, so take a look and see for yourself! Or learn how to make your own household cleaners here.