Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Follow Up to Story About the National Zoo in Washington, DC Killing Toni, the Elephant: Group Asks that the Zoo Send Three Elephants to an Sanctuary

Follow Up to Story About the National Zoo in Washington, DC Killing Toni, the Abused, Sick, Asian Elephant Instead of Sanctuary: Group Asks that the Zoo Send Its Three Remaining Asian Elephants to an Animal Sanctuary and Close its Elephant Exhibit


I wrote about the story of Toni last week. See this post here -

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/shame-

on-national-zoo-in-washington-dc.html

I fully agree – the remaining Asian Elephants must be sent to an animal sanctuary and the National Zoo must close its elephant exhibit. The National Zoo has proven that it cannot be trusted with the lives of other animals and that they will default to killing others if they think bad publicity will come to them.

I urge you all to contact the people in charge at the zoo. You can find all of their contact information here:

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/shame-on-

national-zoo-in-washington-dc.html

Ask them to atone for killing Toni. As you’ll read in the post above, it was completely unnecessary. It was a result of bad publicity. In essence, they decided to forego scrutiny and play god.

PETA seeks sanctuary for US National Zoo elephants

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=

2628&ncid=2628&e=56&u=/nm/20060127/

us_nm/life_elephant_peta_dc_2

Fri Jan 27, 8:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An animal rights group on Thursday appealed to the U.S. National Zoo in Washington to send its three remaining Asian elephants to an animal sanctuary and close its elephant exhibit.

The appeal came a day after the zoo put down an arthritic Asian elephant who was said to have been in worsening pain. The elephant named Toni was 40. Elephants can live to be 60 or older.

"Toni was clearly in bad shape and had been suffering for a long time. If she had been sent to a sanctuary years ago, her quality of life and health would have vastly improved," People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, said in a letter to the director of the

Smithsonian Institution's National Zoo.

PETA said elephants in zoos were dying decades short of their expected lifespan from illnesses that were directly related to the large animals' lack of spaces and their inability to walk great distances each day.

The organization urged National Zoo Director John Berry to send the park's three remaining elephants, four-year-old Kandula; his mother, 30-year-old Shanthi, and Ambika, 57, to an accredited sanctuary to spare them from a life of misery.

"At either The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee or the Performing Animal Welfare Society in California, the zoo's elephants would have the opportunity to roam through hundreds of acres (hectares) of natural habitat... and enjoy full, healthy and enriching lives," the letter said.

A spokesman for the National Zoo was not immediately available for comment.

There has been a growing debate in the United States over whether it is appropriate for zoos to keep elephants, which in the wild walk miles a day and have home ranges of up to 200 square miles.

Critics have said that zoo conditions, including small, concrete-floored enclosures, make elephants miserable.

At a news conference on Wednesday, the National Zoo's elephant curator, Tony Barthel, said Ambika, who is healthy and free of arthritis, provided evidence that the zoo enclosure was not the cause of Toni's health woes.

"She has been living in the current conditions at the National Zoo for longer than Toni was alive," he said.

Berry told reporters the zoo was building a larger exhibit and was considering moving at least some elephants to a 100-acre (40.5-hectare) to 200-acre (81-hectare) enclosure at its more rural conservation facility in Virginia.

Some U.S. zoos have closed their elephant exhibits in the past few years in the light of concern over odd behavior and arthritis among the animals.

In September zookeepers in Anchorage, Alaska said they were installing a treadmill for their one elephant.

The Government Loves Horse Slaughter So Much They’re Willing to Circumvent a Law Just Passed Which Bans It.

This is just shocking. Well, not really, seeing the way the government operates, but still, this clearly demonstrates that not even laws are upheld these days. Essentially, the law was passed to stop the slaughter of horses. But, apparently, the USDA thinks it has the right to circumvent the law and go ahead and authorize the slaughter. So, in essence, go around congress and a law and act alone. So much for the law and democracy. I’m not surprised.

I actually wrote about how horse slaughter works in the US. Essentially, it’s done by foreign companies. The lobbyists for these foreign companies actually have more say then US citizens. You’ll find the article here: Horse Slaughter by Foreign Companies in the US: How Politics Really Works in the US in General and in Relation to Animal Issues and Proposed Bills. - http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/horse-

slaughter-by-foreign-companies.html

Consider these facts all from the article below:

In 2005, some 85,000 horses were killed at three US slaughterhouses, two of which are in Texas.

To horse-slaughter opponents, not only are horses a lot closer to dogs and cats than cattle, but their temperament makes the slaughter process that much more cruel. While cows tend to stand still for the executioner's stun gun, horses - which are much more high-strung - are tougher to render unconscious before they are killed.

The American Veterinary Medical Association supports horse slaughter.

The measure signed into law in November by President Bush bars the USDA from paying for inspections of horses before slaughter, starting March 10.

The idea, say supporters, was to force plants to shut down because federal law requires all livestock to be inspected before slaughter.

But the three foreign-owned slaughterhouses say they will pay the inspectors' salaries under a "fee for service" arrangement, similar to the system used for elk and other exotic animals.

Article:

Battle over ban on horse slaughter pits Congress against federal regulators

Animal rights activists urge legislators to put their foot down on a 2005 bill protecting horses.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0130/p03s03-uspo.html

By Kris Axtman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

HOUSTON - In the weeks between hurricane Katrina and the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, Congress was bombarded with e-mails, phone calls, and faxes - about horse slaughter.

The reason? The Senate was considering an obscure amendment in the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spending bill that would "end the slaughter of America's horses for human consumption overseas," says cosponsor Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada.

Overwhelmingly supported by the letter writers - and, as it turned out, Congress - the year-long ban gave animal activists one of their biggest victories in more than a decade and hope that a permanent ban was imminent.

But now, as implementation of the ban nears, the USDA has said it will allow horse slaughter to continue, in what opponents say is a blatant end run around the intent of Congress.

Each year, tens of thousands of horses are slaughtered here and sent to the tables of Europe and Japan, where the leaner meat is considered a delicacy.

In 2005, some 85,000 horses were killed at three US slaughterhouses, two of which are in Texas.

The measure signed into law in November by President Bush bars the USDA from paying for inspections of horses before slaughter, starting March 10.

The idea, say supporters, was to force plants to shut down because federal law requires all livestock to be inspected before slaughter.

But the three foreign-owned slaughterhouses say they will pay the inspectors' salaries under a "fee for service" arrangement, similar to the system used for elk and other exotic animals.

The USDA has agreed to allow the $4 million industry to continue under this arrangement. In a letter to members of Congress in late December, its deputy general counsel, James Michael Kelly, wrote that the amendment "does not prevent horse slaughter at all."

That angered many in Congress, and earlier this month, 40 members of the House and Senate wrote Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, demanding that inspections of the horses stop.

"The agency must cease inspection of horses for slaughter. Failure to do so constitutes willful disregard of clear Congressional intent on the part of the USDA," the letter warned. "The agency has absolutely no authority to circumvent a Congressional mandate and effectively rewrite an unambiguous law at the request of the horse-slaughter industry."

Mr. Johanns has not responded to the letter, but the renewed fight has some worried that this type of action by a governmental agency will set a bad precedent.

Animal rights activists frustrated

"People are saying, 'What more do we need to do?' This amendment was passed by Congress and signed by the president, and it's still not done," says Chris Heyde, a policy analyst for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation in Washington.

He says the depth of the support for banning horse slaughter indicates just how strongly Americans feel about the animal. According to a 2005 study by the American Horse Council in Washington, the majority of the 9.2 million horses in the US are used for recreational purposes.

To horse-slaughter opponents, not only are horses a lot closer to dogs and cats than cattle, but their temperament makes the slaughter process that much more cruel. While cows tend to stand still for the executioner's stun gun, horses - which are much more high-strung - are tougher to render unconscious before they are killed.

Supporters of the USDA's move argue that horses would face a worse fate if slaughter was not an option.

"What are we going to do with these 70,000 to 100,000 horses should this ban go into effect?" says Mark Lutschaunig of the American Veterinary Medical Association, which supports horse slaughter. "Our concern is that these horses won't be cared for properly, will just be left in pastures without the proper medical or nutritional care or, even worse, sent down to Mexico where slaughter is out of the control of the USDA."

But critics say there is no proof that abuse increases when horse slaughter is curtailed. In fact, since California passed a law in 1998 outlawing the transportation of horses out of state for the purposes of slaughter, there has been no increase in abuse or neglect of the animals, according to the Society for Animal Protective Legislation.

"We are not going to go away," says Tom Durfee, who runs the Laughing Horse Sanctuary in Sandy Level, Va., which currently has 35 horses - some of which were found at auctions, some of which were donated, and others that were rescued from horse traders.

"It may take a little longer," says Mr. Durfee, "but we are never going to give up."

Putting Technology Towards Continuing to Kill Endangered Whales: Japan Invents Super-Harpoon to Kill Whales

So are they proud about this? You bet they are. They love to kill whales and then eat them. They love it so much they actually will be killing endangered whales and did a unilateral break with an international consensus to protect them. They just love to kill whales.

Consider the following from the article below:

Japan announced last year that its whaling fleet would kill up to 50 endangered humpback whales and 50 fin whales, along with the 935 minke whales that it would catch within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica this season. Tokyo does not recognise the sanctuary.

[This is after] Japan’s unilateral decision to break with an international consensus to protect them.

[They use] a fragmentation harpoon, equipped with an enlarged charge of high explosive, to help to slaughter endangered whales in the seas around Antarctica.

The explosive harpoons hurl shards of metal through the whale’s body to sever major nerves and blood vessels and so cause rapid death.

Nowadays, whales that do not die immediately are supposed to be shot in the head with large-calibre rifles. However, according to Greenpeace campaigners who witnessed such incidents, some are dragged backwards until they drown.

According to the International Whaling Commission, it can take up to 14 minutes for a whale that has had a grenade explode inside its body to die.

Japan invents super-harpoon to kill whales

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2015111,00.html

Jonathan Leake and Julian Ryall

JAPANESE whalers are testing a high-tech fragmentation harpoon, equipped with an enlarged charge of high explosive, to help to slaughter endangered whales in the seas around Antarctica.

The device is being used to kill humpback and fin whales, after Japan’s unilateral decision to break with an international consensus to protect them.

The revelation comes just a week after Britain was held spellbound by attempts to rescue a bottlenose whale that became disoriented in the Thames. It died of dehydration.

The explosive harpoons hurl shards of metal through the whale’s body to sever major nerves and blood vessels and so cause rapid death.

Experts from Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research are aboard the whaling fleet of eight catcher boats plus support vessels to determine the effectiveness of the super-harpoon.

Masayuki Komatsu, executive director of the Japan Fisheries Research Agency, said that standard harpoons, used to kill minke whales, could not ensure a swift death for larger whales.

“Because new species have been added to the research project this year which are larger than a minke whale, we thought we would need a bigger grenade on the end of the harpoon to ensure the killing is instantaneous,” he said.

The move has infuriated Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, a more radical group, which regard it as a step towards the resumption of commercial whaling.

To international condemnation, Japan announced last year that its whaling fleet would kill up to 50 endangered humpback whales and 50 fin whales, along with the 935 minke whales that it would catch within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica this season. Tokyo does not recognise the sanctuary.

“This is commercial whaling in disguise, not a scientific programme,” said Mizuki Kitana, a spoksewoman for Greenpeace Japan in Tokyo. “When the ships return to Japan, the meat will go straight to market even though most people in Japan never eat whale.

“The fisheries agency already has plenty of whale meat in stock and it’s clear they are trying to expand the market and get more whale back on menus,” she said.

The new weapon uses a “warhead” redesigned to penetrate the thickest layers of skin, blubber and bone. The body of the harpoon has also been redesigned, using research from battlefield weapons, so that it shatters into sharper fragments.

“This is the new, advanced version of the harpoon grenade and a big improvement on previous versions,” said Shigeko Misaki, an author who specialises in whaling issues and was until recently an official of the Japan Whaling Association.

“If the grenades that used to be fired missed the target they just prolonged the whale’s death, so this grenade is a far more humane method,” she said.

However, the environmental groups monitoring the fleet say that the harpoons do not always work as intended so the animals can take a long time to die.

“Our campaigners have watched the harpooners in action and say that death is seldom instantaneous,” said Kitana.

According to the International Whaling Commission, it can take up to 14 minutes for a whale that has had a grenade explode inside its body to die.

Mortally wounded whales used to be electrocuted via another harpoon fired into the body that would shock the heart, but this method was outlawed by the International Whaling Commission in 2001.

Nowadays, whales that do not die immediately are supposed to be shot in the head with large-calibre rifles. However, according to Greenpeace campaigners who witnessed such incidents, some are dragged backwards until they drown.

Not a Good Idea: Chinese Rush to Pet Stores to Get Dogs in Time for the Beginning of the Year of the Dog: Irony and Idiocy in Motion.


I’m telling you…of all the countries that keep coming up in regard to their bad treatment of animals, China rules. Seem there’s not much ethics over there in regard to animal treatment. I mean they love to wear dog and cat fur and eat dogs and cats. So, I guess we can’t hope for too much.

Please see my previous posting on the dog and cat fur trade from china at: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/chinese-

love-to-kill-dogs-and-cats-for.html

Ironically too, you’d think in the year of the dog that they’d have more respect for dogs. Yet, it seems it’s gotten worse!

China pets face bleak start to Year of the Dog

Fri Jan 27, 9:19 AM ET

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - Dogs in China face a bleak start to the Year of the Dog as families trawl pet stores for gifts ahead of the Spring Festival, animal rights activists say.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2630&ncid=

2630&e=92&u=/nm/20060127/wl_nm/china_dogs_dc_1

Just weeks after bringing cats and dogs home, many residents realize they are too much like hard work and abandon them on the street.

The phenomenon is expected to be at its worst after the Lunar New Year holiday which begins on January 29, heralding the Year of the Dog, which makes canines an auspicious seasonal gift.

"New year is twice as bad. Pick a year and then pick the animal," said Carol Wolfson, founder and director of Second Chance Animal Aid, a nine-month-old Shanghai organization that runs an adoption and shelter program for abandoned pets.

"Pet stores pump them full of antibiotics to make them look cute and then they die a few weeks later. Or else owners just put them out on the street when they've had enough," Wolfson told Reuters.

Abandoned animals are the dark side of the explosion of pet ownership across China in recent years. The national pet population hit nearly 300 million in 2004, up 20 percent from 1999, according to state media.

Raising dogs was banned under the rule of late Chinese leader Mao Zedong as a bourgeois pastime and was only made legal a few years ago once living standards rose with the economy.

While more people have the means to raise pets, many do not have the will to provide long-term care.

Some dogs and cats end up being killed for their fur in barbaric conditions, crammed into cages which are then thrown on to the ground, shattering their bones, according to animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

"With the

Summer Olympics in Beijing fast approaching, we hope the Chinese government will take action to restore the damage that the fur industry has done to the country's international reputation," PETA Asia Pacific director Jason Baker said in a statement.

Abandoned dogs and cats fill cages on the second floor of the Shanghai Pet Association, piles of excrement lying on the tiles beneath them.

"People just drop their pets off outside the door. Often the cats are sick with skin disease or have infections," said Xia Jun, 24, who runs the center.

Since it was founded in December, his organization has built a network of more than 60 "foster parents" who take of the animals after they are picked up and vets give them check-ups.

Xia said the association aimed to rehouse 500 cats and dogs in 2006, but was braced for the worst in coming weeks.

"We expect the dumping phenomenon to perhaps double over the new year period," Xia said.

Some so-called animal protection organizations are not so altruistic -- many have been found to be selling the cats and dogs they gather to restaurants, with dogmeat widely believed to keep out the cold in winter.

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in Beijing)

The Chinese Love to Kill Dogs and Cats for Fur and to Eat Them: One Group and a Few Famous Musicians are Trying to Put a Stop to It.

Yep, the Chinese have a terrible record of animal treatment. They are perhaps the worlds worst perpetrator of animal cruelty. Especially notable is the continuing practice of using dogs and cats for fur. They also eat them. You’ll see though how cruel they really are. From the article below:

It is estimated that up to three million dogs and cats die each year for the Chinese fur trade.

Often, the animals are skinned alive, and remain conscious for 10 or 15 minutes after the pelt is removed.

Even before this horrific act, the animals are kept in cramped conditions and are beaten and clubbed to knock them out before skinning.

Some animals still wear a collar, a sign they were once a much loved family pet which was stolen for the fur trade.

Visit this page for more information on dog and cat fur in china. This page also provides photos for proof. You’ll see just how sick they really are: http://www.furkills.org/

To support the campaign, log onto

http://groups.myspace.com/Singers


SongwritersMusiciansSayNoToFur

ROSELAND ACTIVIST GOES GLOBAL IN BID TO STOP CHINESE FUR TRADE

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=

144143&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144131

&contentPK=13861246&moduleName=InternalSearch&

formname=filtersearch

09:00 - 19 January 2006
A Cornish animal rights activist has set up a global campaign to try and save millions of animals which die each year from the Chinese fur trade.

Mary Alice Pollard, who lives in Gerrans on the Roseland Peninsula, already has support for her campaign from world-renowned musical artists, including Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Jimmy Page and The Levellers.

Mrs Pollard campaigns under the banner Cornwall's Voice for the Animals, and is building up a group - Musicians Against The Fur Trade.

The group exists to raise awareness and also to form an "musical petition" which will be presented to the Chinese Government.

"This is so that singers, songwriters and musicians can work towards a common goal," said Mrs Pollard.

"In May we will send this to the Chinese Government with signatures from all over the world.

"This a chance for people to group together in a common art and a common cause. I think there's strength in numbers."

It is estimated that up to three million dogs and cats die each year for the Chinese fur trade.

Often, the animals are skinned alive, and remain conscious for 10 or 15 minutes after the pelt is removed.

Even before this horrific act, the animals are kept in cramped conditions and are beaten and clubbed to knock them out before skinning.

Some animals still wear a collar, a sign they were once a much loved family pet which was stolen for the fur trade.

The pelts could be turned into anything from clothing to toys, some of which aren't properly labelled as real fur.

Although Mrs Pollard is extremely keen to see the trade outlawed, she realises the importance of finding alternative means of income for people working in the industry.

"It's very easy to hate these people that do this to these beautiful animals, but we have to find them alternative work," she said.

"If we ban this, what happens if it goes underground? We have to give these people alternative, cruelty free work.

"We have to make sure the EU bans imports of fur, so we stop the trade in the western world."

One musician who has joined the campaign is Maria Daines, from Cambridgeshire. She has written a song - I Am The Owner Of This Coat - for the cause.

She said: "This song was inspired by the work of Mary-Alice Pollard, Cornwall's Voice For Animals.

"Contrary to our knowledge of this subject, the fur trade is very much thriving in some parts of the world.

"A lucrative business is labelling real animal fur as 'fake' fur, and selling it as trinkets, fur trims and clothing, even as pet toys.

"The animals are not killed humanely, they are not transported humanely, they are thrown around like rubbish before their deaths, in crates that hold up to 30 dogs or cats in the smallest of spaces.

"How can we stand aside and let this continue? Please help by adding your name to the petition."

To support the campaign, log onto

http://groups.myspace.com/Singers

SongwritersMusiciansSayNoToFur

Bestiality is Alive and Well. Plenty of Humans Like to Have Sex with Alive and Dead Animals. Some Trying to Pass Law in WA State to Make Ilegal

Ok, well you’re probably already shocked. But, even more shocking is that there isn’t a federal law in place already preventing this! Makes you wonder. I say treat offenders like pedophiles. But, definitely lock them away and prevent contact to any human or other animal. Definitely sick people.

Lawmakers to hear bestiality bill Tuesday

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/

257581_bestiality30ww.html

By JASON MCBRIDE

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

OLYMPIA - After the infamous incident at an Enumclaw farm last July that left one man dead after he had sex with a horse, state lawmakers are trying to close a loophole in Washington’s animal cruelty laws.

Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, will present her anti-bestiality bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon. Bestiality is not illegal in Washington. Roach says people who have sex with animals are victimizing them, just like pedophiles molest children.

“Animals cannot give permission, contrary to what people may think,” Roach said. “So you go under the assumption that they are innocent.” Susan Michaels, co-founder of Pasado’s Safe Haven, an animal rescue sanctuary in Sultan, came to Roach with the idea for the legislation last year because of the Enumclaw case.

“It brought to light to many what happens behind closed doors, what no one wants to talk about,” Michaels said.

The measure – Senate Bill 6417 – would make having sex with an animal, alive or dead, a class C felony, which would result in a one to three month sentence in most cases, according to Dan Satterberg, chief of staff at the King County Prosecutor’s Office.

Satterberg and other proponents say sexual predators often have a history that includes sexual abuse of animals. “It is frequent to see that they began their offense with an animal,” Satterberg said.“Obviously, animals can’t testify 5 right now, there’s nothing that can be done that can bring that kind of attention of the court.”

The bill originally included language that would have made videotaping – as was done in the Enumclaw incident – of animal sex illegal, but sponsors took it out because profiting from electronic images is already illegal under the state’s laws against lewd matter.

Monday, January 30, 2006

North Korea Uses Rare Animals from Central Zoo to Film Savage, Staged Fights Involving Endangered Animals - Black Foxes, Tiger, Vulture's, Etc.

And for our story of the day....the sickest of the sickest....

North Korea Uses Rare Animals From Central Zoo to Film Savage, Staged Fights Involving Endangered Animals - Black Foxes, Tiger, Cinereous Vulture's, Red Fox Yellow-Throated Martins, House Cat, Brown Bear, Wild Boar; A Eurasian Eagle Owl, Amur Rat Snake, German Shepherds, Mongrel Hunting Dogs, Eurasian Badger

“Other scenes involve eagles, weasels, marmots, rams and ewes, and domestic farm animals. As well, there is a cockfight.”


Unfortunately as well, it also includes an Asiatic black bear, or a half-moon bear. Also knows as a bile bear because it is put into cages and prodded to remove it’s bile. Very common in China.

Well, what can I say about this one? Words cannot describe the disgust and sadness. Truly are sick people. I’m in a state of shock. Let’s up it that way.

A quick quote to sum it up: “The film's producers would have needed access to rare and valuable animals and the only place in the country that holds them is the Central Zoo in Pyongyang. Also, they would need the cooperation of the zookeepers to match up the different animals in shared cages and goad them enough to maul one another.”

Article:

North Korea: Red in tooth and claw

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HA28Dg01.html

By James Card

BUSAN - The grainy, sometimes out-of-focus film opens with a warning: "This program is something you've never seen before. It is about brutal animal fights and it is all real and intensely interesting."

The 52-minute video, which the opening describes as "made in North Korea as a documentary", goes on to show a variety of animals, many endangered species, either tearing one another apart or posturing for an attack.

This is not your National Geographic documentary about animals in the wild kingdom battling over territorial rights, dominance or a sex partner. It's not about predators and their prey. Hanjoon Productions' animals are mostly caged, their battles initiated.

Rumors about North Korean films of savage, staged fights involving endangered animals have been around for years. Now, the films are available. The video can be found at some video rental shops in South Korea, but hunting around is required. A handful of Korean online video retailers carry copies, which can be purchased for about 5,000 won (US$5). [1]

In the late 1990s, the North's Joseon Science Film Studio videotaped animals attacking each other under the guise of the production being a nature documentary. The films were brought into South Korea and the Ministry of Unification holds them in its library of North Korean materials. Fighting Animals volumes 2-4 are available for public rental, though they are only in Korean. Virtually nothing has been written about them in English.

The June 1997 edition of the Ministry of Unification's monthly Joseon had an article about the animal-fight film and a videotape was included with the issue. Then in 1999, Hanjoon Productions released Fighting Animals for general distribution to the South Korean public. But even today, the film's existence is not widely known.

Many of the scenes, some of which are out of focus, are cut, spliced and hyper-edited as if to portray each scene as one seamless violent episode. Further scrutiny reveals this is far from the case.

In all probability, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il sanctioned the filming of Fighting Animals, or at least gave it his curious approval - though there is no evidence he was directly involved despite his well-documented interest in filmmaking. The film's producers would have needed access to rare and valuable animals and the only place in the country that holds them is the Central Zoo in Pyongyang. Also, they would need the cooperation of the zookeepers to match up the different animals in shared cages and goad them enough to maul one another.

The first scene is of two caged black foxes in a highly agitated state, rubbing against a tree and pawing the earth. The narrator says they are fighting over a piece of fish. They attack each other with bites to the neck in an enclosure with vertical steel bars. Then the film is spliced and the viewer sees two foxes with wet fur in a different cage built of fine-mesh chicken wire. After a few violent seconds, the scene instantly cuts back to the cage of vertical bars and the scene ends when one fox locks into the other with a death bite.

In another scene, a lioness and a tiger are trapped in what appears to be a zoo cage. The background is of iron bars and fake rocks made of poured concrete. The animals growl. Though there is no explanation of why the two are poised to fight, it is assumed the battle is between two territorial animals being forced to share a small cage. The two tear into each other, with the lioness often fighting from her back.

From this brief scene, the narrator posits that the lioness is cowardly and the tiger is the more powerful of these alpha-predators, hinting at animistic nationalism, in the sense that "our native beast is stronger than the foreign beast". The North Korean army chose the tiger as its symbolic mascot, named Hokuk-i, the "nation-defending tiger". Similarly, the tiger is used in numerous symbols in South Korea. Yet in the past neither country has protected the cherished icon.

Korea's Siberian tiger is is one of the most endangered large animals in the world. In pre-industrial Korea the tiger ranged throughout the peninsula, but the last confirmed sighting in South Korea was in 1946 in the Sorak mountain range. A few are thought to exist in the Baekdu Mountain region, but the lack of field evidence puts this in doubt.

South Korea banned trade in tiger bones for use in Han-yak medicine in 1994 because of international condemnation and signed on to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. However, 1993 was a record year for importing tiger bones into South Korea, possibly because pharmacists wanted to stock up on the goods before they became inaccessible. Import records from customs reveal that between 1975 and 1992 more than 6 tons of tiger bone was brought into the country. Ironically, in 1988 there was a large boost in tiger imports and that year South Korea hosted the Olympic Games - the symbol a tiger cub named Hodori.

But the tigers are not the only endangered species from the peninsula featured in the film. A lioness is matched with an Asiatic black bear, called by Koreans a half-moon bear because of the white crescent on its chest. The destruction of the native population of half-moon bears is a dark chapter in Korea.

Traditional medicine believes the bear's gall-bladder bile imbues vitality and good health. The bears have been hunted for centuries to the point of near extinction, with only 10-20 left in South Korea. The number of bears in North Korea is unknown but considered low. Currently, South Korea ranks as the world's largest market for imported bear parts.

Another scene shows a clash that ends with a cinereous vulture's talon slashing through the eye of a red fox. The current world population of cinereous vultures is thought to be about 4,000, and they are on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) "red list of threatened species". The Korean red fox is thought to survive in small numbers in North Korea but were extinct in the South by the 1960s from poisoning and poaching. However, a South Korean hiker found one dead in a poacher's snare in the Gangwon province in March 2004, and the Ministry of Environment estimates there might be about 100 in existence.

Increasing numbers of cinereous vultures have been wintering on the Southern side of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in Paju, Cheorwon, Yanggu and Hwacheon counties.

Other animals in the film include yellow-throated martins, shown in a cage with a house cat, though it appears feral. The yellow-throated martin is rare, found in high-forested mountain elevations, and also endangered.

There are also confrontations between a brown bear, apparently in a zoo, and a wild boar; a Eurasian eagle owl and an Amur rat snake (a staged scene and completely fake); two German shepherds, referred to by the narrator as seoyang-gye, or "western dog"; a poongsan (one of North Korea's national treasures and an excellent hunting dog) and a German shepherd; and four mongrel hunting dogs and a Eurasian badger.

Other scenes involve eagles, weasels, marmots, rams and ewes, and domestic farm animals. As well, there is a cockfight.

North Korea is a black hole of news and events and leaves much of the world speculating on what happens in the isolationist country. Very few foreign wildlife researchers have gained access and little is known about the status of native wildlife, though zoos in the North and South have recently exchanged animals.

With chronic shortages of all supplies and the country on the edge of famine, questions about the care of animals in a North Korean zoo would be natural. This film does little to provide assurances that Pyongyang Central Zoo animals are being properly looked after.

Note

[1] See for example this site

James Card is a freelance writer in South Korea. He can be contacted at www.jamescard.net.

Kill Happy Police Chief In Iowa Steals Dogs From a House, Takes them to the Country, Shots them, and then Dumps them in a Ditch.

Wow. Hummm. Ok. Just walk into a house, take dogs and then kill them. So that’s how it’s done in Iowa. Does the phrase “abuse of power by a sick man” apply? I’d say yes. Good thing he has a gun. Just go ahead and take care of any problem with a gun. Good justice in those parts of the country.


Good thing to see that a mentally disturbed sick man is in such a position of power. Makes you feel real safe.


Here’s his mode of operation: “Johnson said that when the seven dogs were shot , one of them ran 100 yards before dropping dead.

‘In the case of another of the dogs, the police chief had to put pressure on the dog's head my word would be stomped — with his foot to finish him off…’”

Looks like shooting dogs is a fairly common practice in Iowa. Quotes from the story below: “The shooting of dogs is an ongoing problem in Iowa, said Tom Colvin, director of the Animal Rescue League of Iowa and president of the Iowa Federation of Humane Societies. That's particularly true in areas without animal shelters, he said.

"We probably hear about dogs being shot two or three times a month," said Colvin. "There are no statistics kept on dogs being shot, and I'm sure we only hear about a fraction of the situations because an owner wants to pursue the incident."

Killing of dogs triggers probe

Hamburg's police chief said the seven animals he shot were sick and damaging a home.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/

article?AID=/20060130/NEWS08/

601300330&SearchID=73234142155984

By JULI PROBASCO-SOWERS

REGISTER STAFF WRITER

January 30, 2006

The shooting deaths of seven dogs by the chief of police in Hamburg last fall has gained national attention, leading to an investigation by the Fremont County Sheriff's Department.

"People are outraged. No one is above the law," said Peter Wood, deputy manager of animal cruelty issues for the Humane Society of the United States, based in Washington, D.C.

"Imagine officials coming into your home, taking your animals away with no notice and killing them," Wood said. "This is frightening stuff."

Wood wrote to Fremont County Attorney Vicki Danley and Sheriff Steven MacDonald last month to request an investigation into action taken by Police Chief Nick Millsap. An investigation was launched in December, after his letter was received.

Lawyers for the dogs' owner, Elizabeth Brock, and the city of Hamburg say that Millsap removed the dogs from Brock's rental home when the landlord complained they were damaging her house. Millsap contends the dogs were malnourished and sick and that after consulting with a veterinarian through a dispatcher and then the mayor, police transported the dogs to the country, shot them and dumped them in a ditch.

At the time her dogs were killed, Brock said she was in jail in Fremont County for not making a court date or paying fines on time for charges involving bad checks. Brock said that her 14-year-old daughter was giving food and water to the animals, but that they hadn't been let out of the house enough.

As officials wrap up their investigation, Brock is waiting to hear from a Fremont County magistrate whether she will be compensated for the deaths of her seven dogs.

Her small-claims court case, in which she requested $5,000 for the value of her dogs and for her pain and suffering, was heard last week, although the magistrate has not yet ruled on it, said Brock's attorney, Jon Johnson of Sydney.

"This was a horrendous case," Johnson said. "I'm not a dog lover, but this was just awful. They didn't try very hard to find temporary shelter for the dogs."

The shooting of dogs is an ongoing problem in Iowa, said Tom Colvin, director of the Animal Rescue League of Iowa and president of the Iowa Federation of Humane Societies. That's particularly true in areas without animal shelters, he said.

"We probably hear about dogs being shot two or three times a month," said Colvin. "There are no statistics kept on dogs being shot, and I'm sure we only hear about a fraction of the situations because an owner wants to pursue the incident."

Colvin said he believes the incident may prompt Iowans whose dogs have been shot to call their state legislators.

Wood, of the national humane society, said Iowa should strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty. He said he believes more uniformity is needed in animal cruelty laws across the country.

At the same time, Colvin said he believes responsibility for controlling pets falls on both sides of the issue.

"The mere fact people do allow animals to roam, although that wasn't the case here, creates situations where other people have to make decisions on how to deal with the animals," he said. "We need a uniformity in our animal control abilities in the state, and professional animal services throughout the state."

While he said he believes there are laws in place that protect animals in situations like the one in Hamburg, Colvin said more needs to be done.

In Fremont County, Kevin Aistrope, chief sheriff's deputy, said he is waiting for a written statement from Brock before sending the information to the county attorney, who will then decide whether criminal charges should be filed.

"I don't think what was done was legal. That's where the city disagrees. They believe they had a right to destroy the dogs," Aistrope said. He said he has interviewed Millsap, a local police officer and the mayor.

Aistrope said proper procedure would have been to take the animals to a veterinarian in Sidney.

Brock said she planned to visit the sheriff's office on Wednesday to give her statement.

"Those dogs were like my children," she said.

Millsap and Hamburg Mayor Terry Holliman did not return calls seeking their comments.

Bill Hughes, attorney for the city, said the city's position is that officials had reacted properly in a difficult and emotional situation. He said the police chief found the dogs malnourished, and in the case of some of them, almost too ill to walk.

Johnson said that when the seven dogs were shot , one of them ran 100 yards before dropping dead.

"In the case of another of the dogs, the police chief had to put pressure on the dog's head my word would be stomped — with his foot to finish him off," Johnson said.

The Religion of Jainism: What is it and what is it’s Relation to Animal Rights.

Jainism is a very interesting and a very old religion. They are very serious about nonviolence and not killing. Some Jains wear nets on their faces so as to not eat bugs.

Regardless of what you think about this religion, this article gives you a nice introduction to Jainism. After all, that’s what we’re here for – to educate!

FINDING MY RELIGION

Jina Shah, a Jain living in San Francisco, talks about the challenges of treading lightly on our Earth

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2006

/01/30/findrelig.DTL

David Ian Miller, Special to SF Gate

Monday, January 30, 2006

Click to View

Jainism, one of the oldest religions in India, stresses nonviolence in all aspects of life. Its followers, who tend to be vegetarian, believe that all living things are sacred. Even killing flies is considered amoral.

Some say that Jainism is an unorthodox sect of Hinduism, but others see it as a separate religion altogether. Although most Jains still live in India, there are growing communities in the United States, western Europe, Africa, the Far East and elsewhere.

It isn't an easy path, as Jina Shah, a 35-year-old doctor who moved to San Francisco a few months ago, is quick to admit. Shah, whose parents are from India, was born in Chicago and raised in this country. Over the years, she's wrestled with how to live out her ancient Jain values in the modern world, where few share her philosophy of life. Her religious upbringing continues to influence most of her decisions, from the work she does to the kind of man she plans to marry.

What was it like growing up as a Jain?

Being different can be hard when you're a kid -- I felt that way both as a Jain and as an Indian American. The fact that we were vegetarians was the most obvious difference. It was something you had to make people understand, and it became harder as I got older and more strict about vegetarianism.

How were you more strict?

Initially, I ate eggs if they were part of a recipe in food. But then I began to think, "If I'm not eating eggs in omelets, then why am I eating eggs in cakes?" I remember my best friend in grade school wanted to give me a surprise birthday, and she got a cake for me. I think I ate the cake anyway, but I was really uncomfortable about it.

It's funny, because I went with this same friend to Bible school. My mom was quite open to learning about other religions. So she let me go.

You went to a Christian Bible school?

Yeah, and I remember at one point some of the women from the church came to our house and tried to convert my mother. They had long conversations in my living room, and in the end my mom just said, "Well, we don't exactly have that same belief. I think we'll have to agree to disagree."

My mother was probably the strongest influence on me in terms of learning about religion. We had a room set aside as a sort of temple area, and I would spend time in there reading books [about Jainism] while she was praying or doing other rituals. I think that's how, for me, the whole value system and philosophy became internalized. I thought about the things I read and then started incorporating what made sense to me into the way that I lived.

One of the basic tenets of Jainism is the idea that you treat all living things as sacred. What does that mean to you?

Every living being has a soul. Every spirit is equally worthy of our respect and care, and so a central ethical principle is not harming things. Traditionally, it's been narrowly practiced in terms of being vegetarian, avoiding the killing of even small insects in the home and other practices around food and consumption.

How do you decide what's OK to eat when pretty much everything you would want to consume was alive at some point?

It's challenging. I became a vegan about 15 years ago because I felt that simply being a vegetarian wasn't enough. I made that decision after attending a conference at a Jain ashram when I was in college. There was a group there from the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, and I learned about the way cows are treated, about factory farming and the dairy industry.

The reason Jains don't eat meat is because we try to avoid killing anything more than what's necessary for our food, and the reason that traditionally Jains do eat dairy is that you didn't have to kill the cows. But the way that it works in modern factory farming is that the lactating cows, once they cannot give milk anymore, are killed and used for hamburger meat. Their baby male calves, which can never be dairy cows, are raised for veal. It took a little while to actually become vegan after realizing that, but that's why I did it. To me, there is a kind of obvious line about not wanting to be part of killing any animals.

The idea of not harming living things obviously extends beyond what you eat. What are some other ways you follow this creed in your life?

I own a car, but I try to use public transportation as much as I can. Fortunately, I live in San Francisco and work in the East Bay, so I can get by without using my car to commute. Right now, I live in a smallish apartment in a big complex. That may change in the future, but I think where you live is an important aspect of treading lightly in the world.

What about limiting your possessions? As I understand it, that's a core principle of Jainism, although it's not exactly the American way.

A lot of Jains in the U.S. have trouble with that one, myself included. I recently moved from a two-bedroom, one-bath condo in Georgia to this one-bedroom apartment, and so it's really in my face now. I've been going through boxes of stuff, and I'm thinking, "Do I really need these notes and books from a long time ago? I have this closet full of clothes. Why do I really need all of this stuff, and what can I get rid of?"

If you were to take your philosophy of doing no harm to its fullest extent, wouldn't that mean separating yourself from society? Why not just live in a monastery?

In fact, there are two distinct paths in Jainism, and one of them is the way of the monk or nun. Those are the true Jains, actually. They're the ones who have no possessions, except maybe what they're wearing and a bowl for food. They eat whatever excess food there is in a household, and they walk from place to place [to receive their offerings].

Then there is the householder's path, which is what I'm following. It's a step in the right direction, but it's not the fast track to enlightenment.

Do you ever think about taking the other track?

It would be hard for me to give up everything and be part of that community of ascetics. However, I used to spend a lot of time with the nuns when I was a kid. Their lives were so peaceful, and they lived so simply -- it was very appealing. I just don't think I could live that way now. Maybe I could in another life, but not this one.

Since you brought that up, what are your thoughts on reincarnation?

Well, if you believe in karma, if you believe in a soul, which I do, then you sort of have to believe in reincarnation. It makes sense to me that what you do has repercussions that come back to you. You see lots of bad people that seem to have lots of good things in their lives and plenty of good people that seem to be suffering, but I think it evens out over time. Maybe not in one lifetime, but eventually.

You're a single woman. Are you planning to get married, and if you do, will you be marrying a Jain?

I'm currently in a relationship with someone who is broad-minded enough that he showed up at a Jain conference, but he is not exactly Jain. He is Hindu, but he considers Jains to be Hindu in the very broadest sense.

So that's not a problem to be dating someone who is not a Jain?

I think we share the same values, and to me that's really what's important. He understands enough about Jainism, and practically he joins me in a lot of the things that matter. When we go out to eat, he will eat vegan with me -- even though he might not be vegan all the time. He also values treading lightly on the Earth. That's the way that he lives.

I want to ask you about your work. You're doing research on a vaccine to prevent meningitis. How do you feel about testing such a vaccine on animals? That is part of the process, right?

I couldn't directly do animal research. However, in order to get a vaccine or a drug approved, according to the FDA it has to have undergone animal trials. This is one of the hardest places for me to draw the line. I don't like animal research, but it's a requirement.

How do you respond to animal rights advocates who might accuse you of indirectly supporting animal testing by doing the work you do?

In a way, they are right. I'm part of this process. However, that logic only works if you think that animal testing has to be part of developing a product. I don't think it does. There's a group called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which argues that some of the advances we see coming out of modern medicine could have happened in other ways [without animal testing]. So we don't necessarily have to reject those products outright.

If the FDA did not require animal testing for the vaccine that I'm working on, we could have developed it using, for example, molecular genetics and recombinant technology, testing on cell culture, or using other nonanimal methods, and then testing directly on humans. So it's not an all-or-nothing involvement.

I'd also like to point out that the aim of the work I'm doing is to prevent death from a disease that affects a lot of people, especially children in sub-Saharan Africa. Making a positive difference in this way is supported by my values.

Being a Jain sounds complicated. Is that ever frustrating for you?

I think there are so many conflicting values to living a spiritual life, however you define that. It's challenging to figure out how to integrate that in the modern world. That said, we believe in this idea of karma, so your intention does matter. You aren't absolved of accountability or responsibility, but at a certain point things are outside of your control. I think you just have to say, "Look, I did my best, and what happens, happens."

Finding My Religion wants to hear from you. Send comments on stories and suggestions for interview subjects to miller@sfgate.com.

During his far-flung career in journalism, Bay Area writer and editor David Ian Miller has worked as a city hall reporter, personal finance writer, cable television executive and managing editor of a technology news site. His writing credits include Salon.com, Wired News and The New York Observer.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2006/01/30/findrelig.DTL

Norway Puts Fur on the Country's Olympic Team Uniforms: Many Not Happy About it

Olympic furs spark death threats

http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintMail/

ZonePrint.aspx?Path=http://www.sund

aytimes.co.za/zones/sundaytimesNEW/

sportst/sportst1138620494.aspx

Monday January 30, 2006 13:28 - (SA)

OSLO - Norway's sporting federation has received death threats from people angered by the use of fur on the official garb of the country's Olympic team headed for Turin in Italy next month, officials said.

"I received two messages on my mobile phone in which my life was threatened. Those who called said they were ready to kill if we did not remove the fur from the Olympic outfit," the head of the Norwegian Confederation of Sports, Karl-Arne Johannessen, told daily Verdens Gang (VG).

The Norwegian delegation will be dressed in red and white gear equipped with hoods rimmed with fur, probably from Chinese raccoon dogs.

Animal rights activists have in recent weeks urged Norway's sporting officials to pull the fur from the official team outfits.

"We have six hours of film showing that fur animals in that country are bred in abominable conditions: they are skinned alive, they are killed in an extremely brutal manner, they are bred in tiny cages," Live Kleveland with the Norwegian Animal Welfare

Alliance told AFP.

According to Johannessen, several employees of the confederation, including switchboard operators, have received death threats, including one in which the recipient was to be "skinned alive".

The federation said it was investigating the origin of the fur.

In the meantime, it said each athlete could decide for him - or herself whether to remove the detachable fur.

Sapa-AFP

Even People in Topeka and Wichita Kansas are Fed Up with Animal Abuse and Torture: After Burning of a Yorkshire Terrier Two Bills Have Been Drafted

Even People in Topeka and Wichita Kansas are Fed Up with Animal Abuse and Torture: After Video-Taped Burning of a Yorkshire Terrier and Pup Found in a Trash Bin, Two Bills Have Been Drafted.

This is good news. It’s well documented that those who abuse animals will very soon move on to human victims.

Here are a few articles on the connection between animal abuse, mental problems and future abuse of humans.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/abuse_connection.php

http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/family/pets/article10.html

http://www2.webmagic.com/abuse.com/index7.html


Here’s an article on kids and animal abuse:

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/animal-

abuse-can-be-sign-childrens.html


Two bills drafted to protect animals

Time to get tough? Petitions show broad support

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/13745475.htm

BY BRENT D. WISTROM

Eagle Topeka bureau

TOPEKA - The torture and death of a little mixed-breed puppy in Wichita may be enough to push stricter penalties for animal abuse through the Statehouse this year, some legislators say. But when a Senate panel debates two of the bills designed to do that before a packed room Thursday, the question will be: How tough is tough enough?

Kansas is one of nine states that doesn't have felony charges for severe animal abuse. That point has been magnified by the video-taped burning of a Yorkshire terrier named Scruffy in Kansas City, Kan., in 1997 and the death of Magnum, a 10- to 12-week-old pup found in a trash bin in Wichita last August, severely burned by chemicals and wrapped with wire.

More than 73,000 Wichitans have signed petitions supporting tougher laws for those who abuse animals. More petitions will be delivered to lawmakers this week.

Animal advocates say highly publicized cases such as those involving Magnum and Scruffy are just examples of the abuse people at veterinarians' offices and humane societies see every day.

"The situation with Magnum may never had been brought to light had the veterinarian not decided to keep it alive," said Ellen Querner of Wichita, president of Pals Animal Rescue. "Many are just euthanized."

Whoever brutalized Magnum, if caught, would likely receive a misdemeanor charge under Kansas law. Prosecutors charged the four young men who lit Scruffy on fire with arson.

Senate Bill 408, supported by Humane Society of the United States, would make it a felony to kill or seriously injure any animal. Convictions would draw a 30-day to one-year sentence and a minimum fine of $1,500, and offenders would have to go through psychological counseling and anger management classes.

The bill has exceptions, including for veterinary practices, research, hunting, rodeos, euthanasia, population control and animal control. It leaves animal treatment guidelines up to state and private organizations that already have standards.

A separate bill, Senate Bill 402, was drafted by Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, and has been endorsed by 16 other senators. It makes animal cruelty a Class A misdemeanor with a minimum 15-day sentence and requires anyone convicted to undergo a psychological evaluation, become a registered violent offender and submit a DNA sample. It has exceptions, including for hunting, ranching, rodeo and slaughter.

A second offense would draw felony charges.

The Humane Society and other animal advocates say that extreme cases of abuse should be felonies and that there are few second convictions because those who brutalize animals are rarely caught.

Journey, however, said legislators need to make sure their laws don't have any unintended consequences, such as charging a kid who shoots the neighbor's dog with low-power BB gun with a felony.

"Nobody wants to give some 12-year-old kid a felony for doing something stupid that doesn't really injure an animal," he said. "Well, maybe somebody does."

Sen. Carolyn McGinn, R-Wichita, said she was given nearly 73,000 signed petitions from Magnum Force of KS, in support of Senate Bill 408. Most of the signatures were collected in Wichita.

McGinn said the Legislature needs to pass a bill that sends a message that animal abuse won't be accepted.

"I think they have a very good chance of getting passed," she said. "The communities are just outraged."

Senators on the judiciary committee expect a packed room on Thursday when hearings on the two bills open.

Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it's likely one of the bills or a combination will emerge.

"I think there's a pretty good chance they'll come out of committee," he said.

Though the Humane Society and Querner think Journey's bill is too weak, Querner supports the part of the bill that requires convicted animal abusers to submit DNA swabs.

Brian Withrow, an associate professor of criminal justice at Wichita State University, said every serial killer he has studied has started by killing or torturing animals.

"It is the most common thread throughout violent serial offenders' lives," he said. "We don't understand the psychosis behind it, what leads them to do this in the first place. But it is clearly a pattern."

Withrow said many violent serial offenders want to seek help but don't know how to. Not all animal abusers become killers. But Withrow said psychological evaluations and counseling offered in proposed legislation could intervene in some people's lives before they move on to serious crimes against people.

"Criminality is the most difficult thing in the world to predict," he said. "But (animal abuse) is such a common element in the lives of serial offenders that I think we need to capitalize on that."

Friday, January 27, 2006

I Will Not be Posting News Today So as to Prevent The Story Going Away of the National Zoo in Washington, DC Killing Toni, the Abused, Asian Elephant

Please see yesterday’s article - Shame on the National Zoo in Washington, DC: Due to Bad Press, they Disregard Offers to Pay to Have Her Moved to a Sanctuary and Instead Play God and Kill Toni, the Abused, Sick, Asian Elephant

You can find the post at:

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/

shame-on-national-zoo-in-washington-dc.html

Contact information to express your disgust at such a low down, political, money-based move are also listed.

Can you believe that money also rules the zoo in Washington, DC?

They also exchange money for life.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Shame on the National Zoo in Washington, DC: Due to Bad Press, they Play God and Kill Toni, the Abused, Sick, Asian Elephant Instead of Sanctuary

Shame on the National Zoo in Washington, DC: Due to Bad Press, they Disregard Offers to Pay to Have Her Moved to a Sanctuary and Instead Play God and Kill Toni, the Abused, Sick, Asian Elephant

Information on contacting the zoo is listed below.


I just wrote about the issue of Toni 2 days ago -

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/national-

zoo-in-washington-dc-is.html

I can't freaking believe they killed her. I'm just blown away. Must have been the bad press - they didn't want it anymore.

There were plenty of groups offering assistance to have her moved to a sanctuary. The sanctuary was even going to pay for the move!

So it comes down to the National Zoo thinking they had the right to decide the fate of her life instead of giving her another chance.

IF THEY REALLY CARED FOR HER, THEY WOULD GIVEN HER A CHANCE AND WOULD HAVE MOVED HER TO THE SANCTARARY TO LIVE HER LIFE OUT IN PEACE. SHE DESERVED AT LEAST THAT.

Zoo officials say they were concerned that she might not survive the trip. Come on! What a joke! The point is that it would have been worth the try. There’s no reason why she would have not been able to survive it. In any case, it was certainly worth a chance.

The real reason is that she became a liability and if they would have let her go to the sanctuary they would have been open to scrutiny about abuse she received at the zoo. People at the sanctuary definitely would have found things that the zoo could never hide. So, to be safe, they just killed her.

Don't let her horrible life just end like that. Recognize it by boycotting zoos and circuses. Especially boycott the National Zoo in Washington, DC. After all, zoos and circuses are what put eventually killed her. Shame on the National Zoo.

Also, flood their email with letters of disgust and make calls and write letters:

General:

Email: nationalzoo@nzp.si.edu

Address:

National Zoo Information

DEVS

3001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20008

Business Office

Phone 202.633.4271

Fax 202.673.4890


Call and email the suits:

Executive Office

Jim Schroeder
Executive Director 202.633.3073
jschroeder@fonz.org

Executive Office Fax 202.673.4738

Board of Directors 202.633.3072
board@fonz.org

Development 202.633.3033

Marketing 202.633.3046

Host Special Events:
Private Parties and Picnics

202.633.3067
dan@fonz.org


202.633.3068
awilinski@fonz.org

Corporate Membership 202.633.3044

Event Sponsorship 202.633.3046


Tell them you won’t support them:

Support the Zoo

FONZ Office of Development

Web: Support the Zoo

Phone: 202.633.3046

Email: vinickj@nzp.si.edu


Call and email their pr wanks:

Media

National Zoo Office of Public Affairs

Web: Press Room

Phone: 202.633.3055

FONZ Office of Communications

Web: Press Room

Email: matto@fonz.org, shannon@fonz.org

Phone: 202.633.4085, 202.633.4077



Zoo Euthanizes Ailing Elephant

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn

/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012500930.

html?referrer=emailarticle

By D'Vera Cohn and Karlyn BArker

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, January 25, 2006; 12:21 PM

Toni, an ailing Asian elephant at the National Zoo, was euthanized this

morning "following a dramatic decline in her physical condition and

quality of life," zoo officials announced.

The Elephant House will be closed to the public through Sunday, but

visitors will be able to see the elephants in their outdoor yard.

Toni was 40 and increasingly hobbled by arthritis in her front legs, a

condition that zoo officials said stemmed from a leg injury at another

facility before she arrived at the Smithsonian Institution animal park in

1989. She was getting daily doses of ibuprofen--9,000 milligrams twice a

day--and zoo officials had said that they would euthanize her if her

condition worsened.

Zoo officials said Toni had a good appetite and normal disposition, but

continued to lose muscle mass and weight--more than 900 pounds in the past

three years. In recent days, visitors saw her leaning on her trunk in an

effort to support herself. Her condition declined dramatically over the

weekend, they said, and the decision was made yesterday to euthanize her.

The animal's failing health prompted some animal rights groups to push to

have Toni sent to an elephant sanctuary in Tennessee that would provide

softer ground and more room for her to move around. National Zoo officials

said she might not survive the trip.

Search for More Content

Custom Search
Bookmark and Share

Past Articles