Priceless Memories

by Bob Barker; Digby Diehl

  One group opposing the mandatory spay/neuter program is the breeders. There are legitimate breeders, and their business will not be impeded, but there are also all the backyard breeders and puppy mill operators, many of whom are not licensed and pay no taxes, and they are contributing to the tragic overpopulation problem. Some veterinarians oppose anything that will reduce the size of the animal population. It comes down to business, and it comes down to greed. The fewer the animals, the fewer the patients. It is disgusting.

  Again, in most cases, whether it is the fur industry, vivisection, or even the entertainment industry, animal abuse is the result of greed. And when you care about the animals as much as I do and as much as so many others do, it is totally unacceptable to see the poor animals paying the price for unsavory human avarice. Invariably, the people who vigorously oppose suggestions that would improve life for animals are people who in some way profit from the exploitation of animals. Breeders, research scientists, animal trainers, farmers, and the movie industry are just some of the groups from which offenders come. And let’s add circuses, rodeos, roadside shows, and zoos to the list.

  • • •

  Some of the most egregious animal abuse has always resided in the field of animal experimentation, often conducted at top universities around the country. In many cases, these experiments are essentially animal torture and senseless mutilation. I am vehemently opposed to vivisection, and I have spoken out against it for years. I have participated in protests and marches. I have written letters, given speeches, and tried whenever I could to shine a light on the barbaric experiments done on animals of various kinds.

  For years, animals were used in tests for cosmetics and household products. These animals were subjected to blinding, poisoning, and skin infections of all kinds. The test results were useless. They resulted in inaccuracies and were dangerous to human health. Animals and humans are different. The test results are inconclusive. I am delighted to see more and more companies turning their backs on animal testing and pointing it out to consumers on labels and in advertising.

  Animal researchers have historically done some horrendous experiments. I do not want to go into all the gory details, but it is animal torture. There is no other word for it. These researchers know what they are doing to the animals. They know it is barbaric. And they do it anyway. It all comes down to money. They get millions of dollars in federal grants to do animal experiments. One of the easiest ways to get a federal grant is to perform animal experiments. We have been pleading for years with the NIH (National Institutes of Health) to back off, but they continue to sanction—and in some cases demand—animal experiments.

  One of the great tragedies is that many of these tests are redundant—the identical tests are done over and over at several different universities. It is sickening to think of the senseless, repetitive, and useless torture being conducted. It is also a complete waste of taxpayer money. The same researchers repeatedly receive these federal grants; “research welfare,” it is often called. It is a difficult problem to attack, but we are attacking it. And I think we have made progress. There have been signs that we are having an impact. For example, primate experiments have been considerably reduced. I think that by highlighting these atrocities, the animal rights movement has reduced the level of cruelty to animals in the laboratory, but it is an ongoing battle.

  • • •

  I have mentioned Nancy Burnet several times in this book, and well I should. But before I continue further, I’d like to explain how she came into my life. In 1983, I was at an animal shelter in Orange County for an event, the purpose of which was to attract a crowd, and hopefully, find homes for some of the shelter’s dogs. The day was drawing to a close, and I was trying to find a quality home for a dog I had on a leash.

  I looked across the shelter yard and saw Nancy as she arrived. I thought: “There is one great-looking lady.” As I said, the day was drawing to a close, so I didn’t have time to waste. I went over to her, introduced myself, and explained that I was trying to find a good home for the dog I had on the leash. Then I asked her if she was married or single.

  Looking a bit startled, Nancy replied, “I am just winding up a divorce.”

  I said, “Good! Then this dog is definitely for you, and I will have to come over to your home on weekends and occasionally during the week to check on him.” Nancy adopted the dog, and in the years to come, there were times when she got along with the dog much better than she got along with me. Actually, Nancy and I have a long list of things in common, not the least of which is that she doesn’t intend to marry again. Nor do I. Our relationship has gone on for twenty-five years, off and on. Mostly on.

  Nancy is a very brave and knowledgeable woman who has played an important role in the animal rights movement. She is the founder and director of United Activists for Animal Rights, which is headquartered in Riverside, California, but she works on animal projects from coast to coast. In addition to all Nancy accomplishes with UAAR, she is a valuable and respected part of the DJ&T Foundation’s success. As executive director, she interviews the applicants for grants, and I know of no one else so well qualified to handle that assignment. Using Nancy’s notes, the board of directors makes its decisions on the grant requests. But she also has the knowledge and background to advise the grantees in the operation of their organizations. We have a file full of letters from executives of organizations expressing their gratitude for Nancy’s assistance in solving problems of every description.

  Nancy Burnet, who has not always received the credit that she so richly deserves for her stellar work on behalf of animals, has worked tirelessly to protect animals in entertainment, where they are frequently beaten, starved, and mistreated miserably in order to make them perform. One of the more publicized incidents in which we became involved was the exposé of animal cruelty in the production of a movie called Project X, which used chimpanzees. The moviemakers had gone to one of the world’s foremost primatologists, Dr. Roger Fouts, dean of graduate studies and research at Central Washington University and codirector of the Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute. They wanted to get Roger involved with the film. They showed the script to him. He looked over what they wanted the chimps to do and told the moviemakers: “You cannot do this. You cannot possibly do this without beating the chimps. You should use actors in chimp outfits, or you should work in a different direction, but do not use live chimps.”

  They insisted on using live chimps, and he said he would not have anything to do with the picture. Roger walked out, but they went ahead with their plan.

  Nancy and I were informed that there was a great deal of animal cruelty on the set of the film. We were told in graphic detail that the trainers were beating the chimps with clubs, fists, and blackjacks. We heard all kinds of horror stories about what was happening on the set, so we got on the phone and started making some calls to responsible people.

  Eventually, we got the city of Los Angeles involved, and by the time the city finished its investigation, the city wanted to file animal cruelty charges against the animal trainers who worked on the picture. The trainers avoided actual prosecution because the statute of limitations had run out, but the investigation and accusations made against the animal trainers and producers received vast media attention nationwide.

  I have been told that the Project X exposé probably did more to make the public aware of the cruelty to animals in the production of movies than anything else has ever done. To this day, whenever someone hears Project X, they think of the chimps and the cruelty involved with the filming of that movie. Score one for the Burnet/Barker duo!

  After the Project X exposé, Nancy placed ads in the trade papers urging people on sets who observed animal mistreatment to contact UAAR. Of course, people who reported cruelty to animals on sets were promised anonymity. Otherwise, they risked losing their jobs or even being blackballed in the industry. It was as a result of these ads that Nancy received a telephone call regarding the television show Dr.
Quinn, Medicine Woman. The caller reported that horses used on Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman were not receiving proper care. Eventually, Nancy found a second eyewitness who confirmed the first report.

  Nancy and I discussed how we should proceed. As a result of our experience with the American Humane Association during the Project X exposé, we had lost all confidence in AHA. We decided to seek the assistance of Madeline Bernstein of SPCALA, who has a rock-solid reputation for having no sympathy for animal abusers. We called Madeline, told her what the two eyewitnesses had reported, and asked her if she would meet with us and discuss the matter. Typical of Madeline, she said, “There’s no need for further discussion. I’ll have two humane officers out there tomorrow in plainclothes to check it out.” The two humane officers checked out everything having to do with the horses and reported that conditions were as bad as—if not worse than—the eyewitnesses had described them to be.

  Beth Sullivan, executive producer of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, emerged as a heroine. She told the humane officers that she had been concerned about the horses and had told the head wrangler to take better care of them. In spite of the fact that Beth Sullivan agreed with SPCALA humane officers that a problem existed with the manner in which the horses had been cared for and that the problem had to be corrected, the woman who at that time was the director of the American Humane Association Hollywood office went on television and said that AHA had two officers on duty at all times, and they had observed no problems with the horses. Can you understand why Nancy and I don’t go to the American Humane Association with animal abuse problems in movies and on television?

  • • •

  In regards to legislation, it was in the late 1980s that I had a telephone call from Marion La Folette, who was a California assemblywoman at that time. Marion said that she wanted to amend the California penal code to include felony penalties for animal abusers who commit crimes against animals. As the penal code was written at that time, such crimes were only a misdemeanor. Marion asked me if I would be willing to come to Sacramento to lobby in favor of such an amendment. I said, “Gladly. Crimes against animals should be a felony.”

  Marion said, “Thank you, Bob, and you can write the language for the amendment.”

  I told Marion that writing the language for the amendment was not my bag, but that I had a friend who could do it beautifully. Of course, I was referring to Nancy Burnet, who has extensive experience in such writing. As it turned out, Nancy not only wrote the language for the amendment to the penal code but also managed to close some loopholes in the code along the way. Nancy wrote the amendment and lobbied. I lobbied, too. Marion got the amendment passed and, as a result, an animal abuser who commits a crime against an animal in the state of California has committed a felony.

  For a quarter of a century, I have had the good fortune and the pleasure of working with Nancy Burnet and her organization, United Activists for Animal Rights, in an effort to make ours a better world for animals. Animal rights activists across the country—around the world, as a matter of fact—have accomplished a great deal and the momentum increases almost daily. As Al Jolson used to say: “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

  14

  Retirement Can Keep You Busy

  I am a complete success at retirement.

  I think I stopped doing The Price Is Right at just the right time. I enjoyed hosting right up to the last minute of the last show. But I had been concerned that the first morning that I awakened and realized that I didn’t have a show to do that day—or ever—I might go into a deep depression or at least a funk.

  However, quite the contrary, I awakened with a wonderful feeling of relaxation. I had enjoyed doing my shows so very much for half a century that it had never occurred to me that my demanding schedule for so many years might have had any adverse affect on me whatsoever. But since my retirement, I am so much more relaxed, both physically and mentally, that there is no doubt that I chose to retire at just the right time—not too late, not too soon.

  Please don’t picture me sitting around staring off into space, doing nothing. I do plan to do some of that, if I ever get time. Actually, I feel as if I am starting a new, completely different, and very exciting phase of my life, one that I hope will be productive and pleasing to others, as well as to me.

  • • •

  As I write, I have been retired from Price for more than a year. One of the things that has kept me busy is writing this book. I had been approached several times over the years by agents who wanted me to write a book, but when I announced my retirement, I received an attractive offer from one of the top publishers. I accepted, but before we could sign the papers, the deal collapsed, through no fault of mine or the publisher.

  Norman Brokaw, chairman of the board of the famous William Morris Agency, and I have known each other since Sol Leon was solving all my problems. When I told Norman that my book deal was no more, Norman promptly said, “Bob, I’ll get you a publisher if you want to write a book.”

  I said, “I’m not sure I want to. Let me think about it.”

  About a week later, while I was thinking about it, Norman called and said, “Bob, I have an excellent offer for you from an excellent publisher.”

  “I guess I am going to write a book,” I said. And, you know, I have thoroughly enjoyed writing this book. To me, it’s a lot like talking to an audience. Of course, I’m writing about me, and I’ve always liked talking about myself.

  Dorothy Jo and I used to have what we called chat time. At the end of the day, before dinner, we’d sit down, I’d pour a couple of glasses of wine, and we would chat. One evening we sat down, I poured our wine, and Dorothy Jo said, “Barker, tonight let’s talk about anything but you.”

  I couldn’t think of a thing to say.

  Dorothy Jo was a very funny lady, often at my expense. One time she was being interviewed by a newspaper reporter who asked, “How have you and Bob remained happily married for so long—particularly here in Hollywood, where so many people go through one divorce after another?”

  Dorothy Jo thought for a moment and answered: “Our marriage is based on love. I love Barker, and Barker loves Barker.” Dorothy Jo had to pour her own wine that evening, and I talked about myself during our chat time.

  As I recall these remarks of Dorothy Jo’s, I am reminded that I haven’t written anything as yet about the grand old house that we bought in 1969 when we moved back to Hollywood from the San Fernando Valley and in which I sit as I write.

  The first home built in Hollywood, an adobe, was located on the lot on which our house now stands. Eventually, Harrison Gray Otis, founder of the Los Angeles Times, bought the adobe. He named it the Outpost and lived in it until he died.

  Our house was built in 1929. It’s a Spanish Colonial Revival style with the original tile in all the bathrooms, leaded windows, stained-glass windows, a hand-carved padre’s walk (balcony) the length of the house, and a decorative hand-painted coffered ceiling in the entryway.

  Dorothy Jo loved this house. She decorated it herself and chose every piece of furniture for it. When she was terminally ill, she said, “I hope this house doesn’t end up as an apartment house some day.” And I am delighted to tell you, it won’t. At least, not for a long, long time.

  I submitted the history of this house and its features to the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission and requested that it be declared an historic cultural monument. After an inspection by the commissioners, the house that Dorothy Jo loved so much and wanted protected was named historic cultural monument number 673. That means no changes without the commission’s approval.

  I know nothing is forever. But it’s the best I can do.

  • • •

  As I have mentioned earlier, my involvement with animal rights has become a more important part of my life with each passing day. As proud as I may be of my nineteen Emmys and my fifty years on television, I really feel that some of the most valuable things I may do in life may be things I have yet to do. And I suspect
it will be in the area of animal rights.

  For instance, I have established endowment funds for the study of animal rights law at eight of the finest law schools in the country: Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown, Duke, Northwestern, UCLA, Stanford, and the University of Virginia. My thinking is that some background in animal law would be useful if, as lawyers, these graduates have cases involving animals. Of course, having studied animal law would prove to be equally valuable if they became judges.

  Many, if not a majority, of the members of Congress have a legal background, and it is with legislation that we can make great strides in protecting animals. Our present federal, state, and local laws are inadequate, and frequently they are not stringently enforced. Hopefully, graduates of these eight law schools who go into politics will be inspired to introduce legislation helpful to the long-suffering animals. Incidentally, these endowment funds have not only been gratefully applauded by animal rights activists, but have been very positively reviewed by the legal community.

  Since my retirement, I have established a unique endowment fund at my alma mater, Drury University, in Springfield, Missouri, for the study of animal rights. I am glad to be able to give this money to Drury because when I was there, I didn’t have fifteen cents to spare. To the best of my knowledge, it is the first such endowment fund at an undergraduate school in the United States. I had the good fortune of meeting Dr. Patricia A. McEachern, who is also deeply devoted to animals. In addition to being an associate professor of French, Dr. McEachern is now director of the Drury University Forum on Animal Rights. She took on the responsibility of planning the course down to the smallest detail and carefully choosing the faculty members who will teach this interdepartmental class.