Yes, unfortunately, moderate, but better than now. So, follow the link below to find out more about the act.
Support Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act (H.R. 5557)
Introduced on June 8, 2006, the federal Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act would require producers who supply meat, dairy and eggs to federal programs to comply with moderate animal welfare standards. The bill would help ameliorate some of the worst suffering endured by animals raised for food in the U.S., and force factory farmers to recognize the suffering of farm animals. Read more and take action.
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/fed_stewardship.htm
Friday, June 30, 2006
Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act Would Require Producers Who Supply to Federal Programs to Comply With Moderate Animal Welfare Standards
Site Set Up to Support Lost and Found Companion “Pet” Effort from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
A great site that shows both Companions “pets” found and lost in an attempt to reunite them with their companions. Please take a look. Perhaps you can help.
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~rrhudy/bfrr/
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~rrhudy/bfrr/
Interesting New Site Takes a Look at the Truth Behind Puppy Mills and Pet Stores and Asks You to the Pet Store Challenge
A very educational site. I encourage all to visit it and certainly tell others about it and the truth behind pet stores. Of course, if there is a pet store in your area, take the Pet Store Challenge.
http://www.stoppuppymills.org/petstorechallenge/
http://www.stoppuppymills.org/petstorechallenge/
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Teen Will Spend Two Weeks Chained To a Doghouse to Raise Awareness Against Chaining Dogs in Yards and As a Stand Against Animal Cruelty
Amazing stuff. It’s rare to find a teen that cares about anything other than clothes, friends and popularity. Well, this teen goes beyond the norm and is suffering to raise awareness to the horrible issue of chained dogs. You can find out more about chained dogs and how you can help, plus view daily pictures of this heroic endeavor at http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/home.html
Jacob Pittman, you’re an inspiration. Stay strong and remember that the end goal is more important than the problems you’ll face.
Article:
Cape teen to spend two weeks in dog house
http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?
articleid=7720&z=3&p=
Stephen Ryan
Last updated on: 6/29/2006 7:27:38 AM
WMP 9 or higher required
LEE COUNTY: A Cape Coral teenager is putting himself in the doghouse - literally. He is going to spend two weeks chained to a doghouse as part of a reality TV show. He says he is doing it as a stand against animal cruelty.
There is no doubt that Jacob Pittman is a dog lover, especially when it comes to beagles. He has 10 of them.
"It's like they're part of the family; they all have their own personal attitudes," said Pittman.
On Saturday, Pittman is going to start living a dog's life. He's going to stay outside, in a dog house, for two weeks in Pennsylvania as a part of a contest to raise awareness against chaining dogs in yards.
"I’m going to have a sleeping bag, but I'm going to be chained to it," said Pittman.
Unlike the beagles Pittman takes such good care of, he won't have any comforts such as books, TV, or visitors.
"It's going to be tough. I'm so used to being in a world where I'm able to do what I want, use the computer, or games," said Pittman.
Pittman is going to have to bathe in a Porta-Potty, using nothing more than baby wipes. Even if he can't stick it out, his mother and sister say they'll still be proud of him.
"My son is a very loving guy. He's got a really big heart. He's very tender-hearted," said Pittman’s mother Janet.
"It means a lot. I really love him and I'm happy he's doing it," said Pittman’s sister Audrey.
Jacob must outlast 13 other contestants to win. If he wins, he will get a new car. But to reinforce the fact that this is about the dogs, he's going to give the car to his sister if he wins.
You can vote for him online at www.dogsdeservebetter.org. The site will post new photos every day so you can check out his progress.
Jacob Pittman, you’re an inspiration. Stay strong and remember that the end goal is more important than the problems you’ll face.
Article:
Cape teen to spend two weeks in dog house
http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?
articleid=7720&z=3&p=
Stephen Ryan
Last updated on: 6/29/2006 7:27:38 AM
WMP 9 or higher required
LEE COUNTY: A Cape Coral teenager is putting himself in the doghouse - literally. He is going to spend two weeks chained to a doghouse as part of a reality TV show. He says he is doing it as a stand against animal cruelty.
There is no doubt that Jacob Pittman is a dog lover, especially when it comes to beagles. He has 10 of them.
"It's like they're part of the family; they all have their own personal attitudes," said Pittman.
On Saturday, Pittman is going to start living a dog's life. He's going to stay outside, in a dog house, for two weeks in Pennsylvania as a part of a contest to raise awareness against chaining dogs in yards.
"I’m going to have a sleeping bag, but I'm going to be chained to it," said Pittman.
Unlike the beagles Pittman takes such good care of, he won't have any comforts such as books, TV, or visitors.
"It's going to be tough. I'm so used to being in a world where I'm able to do what I want, use the computer, or games," said Pittman.
Pittman is going to have to bathe in a Porta-Potty, using nothing more than baby wipes. Even if he can't stick it out, his mother and sister say they'll still be proud of him.
"My son is a very loving guy. He's got a really big heart. He's very tender-hearted," said Pittman’s mother Janet.
"It means a lot. I really love him and I'm happy he's doing it," said Pittman’s sister Audrey.
Jacob must outlast 13 other contestants to win. If he wins, he will get a new car. But to reinforce the fact that this is about the dogs, he's going to give the car to his sister if he wins.
You can vote for him online at www.dogsdeservebetter.org. The site will post new photos every day so you can check out his progress.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Group Releases List of Precautions and Steps to Take to Protect Your Companion Animals (Pets) On the Forth of July
From the HSUS at http://www.hsus.org
To protect your pet on the Fourth of July, take these precautions:
a. Resist the urge to take your pet to fireworks displays.
b. Do not leave your pet in the car. With only hot air to breathe inside a
car, your pet can suffer serious health effects, even death, in a few short
minutes. Partially opened windows do not provide sufficient air, but do
provide an opportunity for your pet to be stolen.
c. Keep your pets indoors at home in a sheltered, quiet area. Some animals
can become destructive when frightened, so be sure that you've removed any
items that your pet could destroy or that would be harmful to your pet if
chewed. Leave a television or radio playing at normal volume to keep him
company while you're attending Fourth of July picnics, parades, and other
celebrations.
d. If you know that your pet is seriously distressed by loud noises like
thunder, consult with your veterinarian before July 4th for ways to help
alleviate the fear and anxiety he or she will experience during fireworks
displays.
e. Never leave pets outside unattended, even in a fenced yard or on a
chain. In their fear, pets who normally wouldn't leave the yard may escape
and become lost, or become entangled in their chain, risking injury or
death.
f. Make sure your pets are wearing identification tags so that if they do
become lost, they can be returned promptly. Animals found running at-large
should be taken to the local animal shelter, where they will have the best
chance of being reunited with their owners.
If you follow these simple precautions, you and your pet can have a safe and
happy Fourth of July.
To protect your pet on the Fourth of July, take these precautions:
a. Resist the urge to take your pet to fireworks displays.
b. Do not leave your pet in the car. With only hot air to breathe inside a
car, your pet can suffer serious health effects, even death, in a few short
minutes. Partially opened windows do not provide sufficient air, but do
provide an opportunity for your pet to be stolen.
c. Keep your pets indoors at home in a sheltered, quiet area. Some animals
can become destructive when frightened, so be sure that you've removed any
items that your pet could destroy or that would be harmful to your pet if
chewed. Leave a television or radio playing at normal volume to keep him
company while you're attending Fourth of July picnics, parades, and other
celebrations.
d. If you know that your pet is seriously distressed by loud noises like
thunder, consult with your veterinarian before July 4th for ways to help
alleviate the fear and anxiety he or she will experience during fireworks
displays.
e. Never leave pets outside unattended, even in a fenced yard or on a
chain. In their fear, pets who normally wouldn't leave the yard may escape
and become lost, or become entangled in their chain, risking injury or
death.
f. Make sure your pets are wearing identification tags so that if they do
become lost, they can be returned promptly. Animals found running at-large
should be taken to the local animal shelter, where they will have the best
chance of being reunited with their owners.
If you follow these simple precautions, you and your pet can have a safe and
happy Fourth of July.
American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act: Stop Horses From Being Sent to Slaughter for Food: How You Can Support It
From another group. Though this doesn’t appear to be news, it most certainly is information that most would want to know. Therefore, I have decided to post it.
The U.S. House of Representatives may vote on H.R. 503, the
American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, very soon. Each year,
an estimated 90,000 horses are slaughtered at three
foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the U.S., their meat shipped to
Europe and Asia where horsemeat is considered a delicacy in some
countries.
Help end this practice by urging your U.S. representative to
support H.R. 503!
Please call or fax a letter to your U.S. representative today
and urge him or her to vote YES on H.R. 503 to end horse
slaughter for good in the United States.
To find your representative and get his or her contact
information, follow this link:
http://ga4.org/ct/x7LlBfn18X6F/
Refer to our talking points, below, for more information. Also,
don't forget to mention that you are a constituent.
Many of the horses who are slaughtered were once used in the
manufacture of hormone replacement therapy drugs made from
pregnant mares' urine (PMU), or are young foals born as a result
of this process.
Thank you for being a strong and compassionate advocate for the
animals!
*** TALKING POINTS ***
- Last year, more than 90,000 horses were slaughtered in the
United States for human consumption in Europe and Asia. Tens of
thousands more horses were exported from the United States and
slaughtered in other countries.
- Horses suffer horribly on the way to and during slaughter.
They can easily get trampled, injured or die while being
transported 24 hours or more with no food, water or rest. They
are often slaughtered while still consciously alive.
- Americans overwhelmingly support an end to horse slaughter
for human consumption. In California, a 1998 ballot initiative
banning horse slaughter for human consumption passed with 60
percent of the vote.
*** RELATED LINKS ***
Text of H.R. 503:
http://ga4.org/ct/xdLlBfn18X6G/
More current animal protection legislation:
http://ga4.org/ct/xpLlBfn18X6-/
The U.S. House of Representatives may vote on H.R. 503, the
American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, very soon. Each year,
an estimated 90,000 horses are slaughtered at three
foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the U.S., their meat shipped to
Europe and Asia where horsemeat is considered a delicacy in some
countries.
Help end this practice by urging your U.S. representative to
support H.R. 503!
Please call or fax a letter to your U.S. representative today
and urge him or her to vote YES on H.R. 503 to end horse
slaughter for good in the United States.
To find your representative and get his or her contact
information, follow this link:
http://ga4.org/ct/x7LlBfn18X6F/
Refer to our talking points, below, for more information. Also,
don't forget to mention that you are a constituent.
Many of the horses who are slaughtered were once used in the
manufacture of hormone replacement therapy drugs made from
pregnant mares' urine (PMU), or are young foals born as a result
of this process.
Thank you for being a strong and compassionate advocate for the
animals!
*** TALKING POINTS ***
- Last year, more than 90,000 horses were slaughtered in the
United States for human consumption in Europe and Asia. Tens of
thousands more horses were exported from the United States and
slaughtered in other countries.
- Horses suffer horribly on the way to and during slaughter.
They can easily get trampled, injured or die while being
transported 24 hours or more with no food, water or rest. They
are often slaughtered while still consciously alive.
- Americans overwhelmingly support an end to horse slaughter
for human consumption. In California, a 1998 ballot initiative
banning horse slaughter for human consumption passed with 60
percent of the vote.
*** RELATED LINKS ***
Text of H.R. 503:
http://ga4.org/ct/xdLlBfn18X6G/
More current animal protection legislation:
http://ga4.org/ct/xpLlBfn18X6-/
Excellent Summation of Laws Either Enacted or Currently Proposed That Affect Companion Animals (Pets) In Some Way
This article provides an excellent summation of laws either enacted or currently proposed that affect companion animals in some way. In addition to helping companion animals in emergencies like hurricanes, there also have been bills passed aimed at dogfighting and bestiality. All in all, positive steps.
Article:
Legislators Help Pets in Disasters
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories
/op/storiesView/sid/16028/
By John Gramlich - With hurricane season under way and images of Katrina lingering, state lawmakers are turning to the plight of pets in emergencies - an issue among a host of animal-related legislation to reach governors' desks in recent weeks.
Stateline.org - infoZine
Since May 22, the governors of Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Vermont have signed bills that provide more protection for pets during emergencies. In Louisiana, where animal rights groups estimate thousands of pets died during Katrina, a bill passed by the Legislature June 15 has drawn national attention as the most sweeping attempt to keep pets and their owners together during disasters.
Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would require states to have emergency evacuation plans for pets in place. Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have introduced a similar bill that could add federal funding to help states carry out the mandate, though no amount has been specified.
The flurry of new laws and bills has gone beyond pets in emergencies. The Humane Society of the United States reports that, since January 2006,
* Three states (Kansas, Maryland and Montana) have restricted the ownership of exotic animals - including bears, lions and tigers - as pets.
* Three states (Colorado, Georgia and Illinois) have increased penalties for owners of dogs deemed "vicious" or "dangerous."
* Illinois became the first state to ban certain felons from owning aggressive dogs; among felons specifically targeted are drug manufacturers, who were blamed for using dogs to attack law enforcers.
* Six states (Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington) have clamped down on animal fighting, including for gambling purposes.
* Arizona and Washington outlawed bestiality, or sexual relations between a human and an animal, bringing to 32 the number of states in which the act is a crime.
In addition, since 2005, legislatures in 21 states have outlawed "Internet hunting" after a Web site premiered offering customers the chance to kill live animals from the safety of their homes, according to the Humane Society. (See related story: State lawmakers bag online hunting).
The post-Katrina pet evacuation laws are about more than saving animals. Victims in storm-affected areas in many cases refused to leave their pets behind.
An October 2005 Zogby International poll found that 49 percent of adults said they would not leave disaster areas without their pets. In New Orleans, 44 percent of those who did not evacuate during Katrina claimed they stayed because of their pets, according to the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
A bill sponsored by Louisiana state Sen. Heulette "Clo" Fontenot (R) would be the most far-reaching to date if signed into law, as expected, by Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). Both houses approved the bill unanimously.
Like the new Florida and New Hampshire laws, the bill requires that service animals, such as guide dogs, be evacuated with their owners. But it also calls for the establishment of pet shelters in the state and an identification system to reunite pets and their owners after emergencies. The measure, which applies only to cats and dogs, would require local authorities to outfit the animals with bar-coded tags during emergencies.
Fontenot told Stateline.org he introduced his legislation after seeing televised images from Hurricane Katrina in which service animals were left behind.
"I thought it was totally unconscionable to take a person's only source of independence away from them," Fontenot said.
The plan is expected to cost the state about $4 million, according to Fontenot, who said federal regulations add to the cost of evacuating pets. In temperatures above 85 degrees, for example, pets must be evacuated in refrigerated trucks, Fontenot said. Temperatures above 85 degrees are routine in Louisiana.
"Those refrigerated trucks are very expensive. We could easily transport those same animals in an open-air flatbed trailer at one quarter of the cost," he said.
Like Louisiana's measure, the Florida, Hawaii and New Hampshire laws call for authorities to develop plans for pet evacuation. Vermont's new law requires that state and local emergency planning commissions include representatives from animal rescue organizations and removes from civil liability those who voluntarily shelter pets during emergencies.
In 2005, Maine became the first state to sign an "animal emergency" bill into law. The Maine law established an Animal Response Team to respond to disasters affecting animals.
Animal rights representatives have hailed the state and federal initiatives. Ledy Van Kavage, senior director of legislation and legal training for the American SPCA, said it would be a disgrace if Louisiana did not enact pet evacuation legislation.
"Let's face it, all eyes are on Louisiana," Van Kavage said.
Meanwhile, other pet-related legislation has moved speedily through statehouses nationwide.
In the past year, at least 15 states have introduced "dangerous" or "vicious" dog bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which tracks state legislation. At least 29 states and the District of Columbia already have laws in place, according to NCSL. Only Ohio's statute bans certain breeds of dogs, including pit bulls and Rottweilers.
States also are getting tough on animal fighting, such as dogfighting, cockfighting and - in the recent cases of Alabama and Mississippi - hog-dog fighting, in which trained dogs attack penned feral hogs. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) signed a bill to outlaw the sport on March 28, and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (R) followed suit on April 13. Louisiana became the first state to criminalize the practice in 2004.
Cockfighting remains legal in only two states, New Mexico and Louisiana. But that hasn't prevented some lawmakers from voicing their disapproval. A proposal introduced in January by New Mexico state Sen. John Grubesic (D) sought to make cockfighting the official "state disgrace."
The start of hurricane season, however, has served as a grim reminder of Katrina and has made pet evacuation during emergencies a top priority for legislators and animal rights groups alike.
"I think it's a good animal welfare policy, but I also think it's a good public welfare policy," said Dan Paden, a researcher with the domestic animal department of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "It goes a long way toward not forcing Americans to abandon, in disasters, all they have left of their lives, which are their animals."
Article:
Legislators Help Pets in Disasters
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories
/op/storiesView/sid/16028/
By John Gramlich - With hurricane season under way and images of Katrina lingering, state lawmakers are turning to the plight of pets in emergencies - an issue among a host of animal-related legislation to reach governors' desks in recent weeks.
Stateline.org - infoZine
Since May 22, the governors of Florida, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Vermont have signed bills that provide more protection for pets during emergencies. In Louisiana, where animal rights groups estimate thousands of pets died during Katrina, a bill passed by the Legislature June 15 has drawn national attention as the most sweeping attempt to keep pets and their owners together during disasters.
Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would require states to have emergency evacuation plans for pets in place. Sens. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) have introduced a similar bill that could add federal funding to help states carry out the mandate, though no amount has been specified.
The flurry of new laws and bills has gone beyond pets in emergencies. The Humane Society of the United States reports that, since January 2006,
* Three states (Kansas, Maryland and Montana) have restricted the ownership of exotic animals - including bears, lions and tigers - as pets.
* Three states (Colorado, Georgia and Illinois) have increased penalties for owners of dogs deemed "vicious" or "dangerous."
* Illinois became the first state to ban certain felons from owning aggressive dogs; among felons specifically targeted are drug manufacturers, who were blamed for using dogs to attack law enforcers.
* Six states (Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington) have clamped down on animal fighting, including for gambling purposes.
* Arizona and Washington outlawed bestiality, or sexual relations between a human and an animal, bringing to 32 the number of states in which the act is a crime.
In addition, since 2005, legislatures in 21 states have outlawed "Internet hunting" after a Web site premiered offering customers the chance to kill live animals from the safety of their homes, according to the Humane Society. (See related story: State lawmakers bag online hunting).
The post-Katrina pet evacuation laws are about more than saving animals. Victims in storm-affected areas in many cases refused to leave their pets behind.
An October 2005 Zogby International poll found that 49 percent of adults said they would not leave disaster areas without their pets. In New Orleans, 44 percent of those who did not evacuate during Katrina claimed they stayed because of their pets, according to the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
A bill sponsored by Louisiana state Sen. Heulette "Clo" Fontenot (R) would be the most far-reaching to date if signed into law, as expected, by Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). Both houses approved the bill unanimously.
Like the new Florida and New Hampshire laws, the bill requires that service animals, such as guide dogs, be evacuated with their owners. But it also calls for the establishment of pet shelters in the state and an identification system to reunite pets and their owners after emergencies. The measure, which applies only to cats and dogs, would require local authorities to outfit the animals with bar-coded tags during emergencies.
Fontenot told Stateline.org he introduced his legislation after seeing televised images from Hurricane Katrina in which service animals were left behind.
"I thought it was totally unconscionable to take a person's only source of independence away from them," Fontenot said.
The plan is expected to cost the state about $4 million, according to Fontenot, who said federal regulations add to the cost of evacuating pets. In temperatures above 85 degrees, for example, pets must be evacuated in refrigerated trucks, Fontenot said. Temperatures above 85 degrees are routine in Louisiana.
"Those refrigerated trucks are very expensive. We could easily transport those same animals in an open-air flatbed trailer at one quarter of the cost," he said.
Like Louisiana's measure, the Florida, Hawaii and New Hampshire laws call for authorities to develop plans for pet evacuation. Vermont's new law requires that state and local emergency planning commissions include representatives from animal rescue organizations and removes from civil liability those who voluntarily shelter pets during emergencies.
In 2005, Maine became the first state to sign an "animal emergency" bill into law. The Maine law established an Animal Response Team to respond to disasters affecting animals.
Animal rights representatives have hailed the state and federal initiatives. Ledy Van Kavage, senior director of legislation and legal training for the American SPCA, said it would be a disgrace if Louisiana did not enact pet evacuation legislation.
"Let's face it, all eyes are on Louisiana," Van Kavage said.
Meanwhile, other pet-related legislation has moved speedily through statehouses nationwide.
In the past year, at least 15 states have introduced "dangerous" or "vicious" dog bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which tracks state legislation. At least 29 states and the District of Columbia already have laws in place, according to NCSL. Only Ohio's statute bans certain breeds of dogs, including pit bulls and Rottweilers.
States also are getting tough on animal fighting, such as dogfighting, cockfighting and - in the recent cases of Alabama and Mississippi - hog-dog fighting, in which trained dogs attack penned feral hogs. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) signed a bill to outlaw the sport on March 28, and Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (R) followed suit on April 13. Louisiana became the first state to criminalize the practice in 2004.
Cockfighting remains legal in only two states, New Mexico and Louisiana. But that hasn't prevented some lawmakers from voicing their disapproval. A proposal introduced in January by New Mexico state Sen. John Grubesic (D) sought to make cockfighting the official "state disgrace."
The start of hurricane season, however, has served as a grim reminder of Katrina and has made pet evacuation during emergencies a top priority for legislators and animal rights groups alike.
"I think it's a good animal welfare policy, but I also think it's a good public welfare policy," said Dan Paden, a researcher with the domestic animal department of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "It goes a long way toward not forcing Americans to abandon, in disasters, all they have left of their lives, which are their animals."
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Pets as Companions: Words Mean A Lot: Changing the Legal Status of “Pets” and Changing Mentalities
A good article that touches on the changing view of pets to that of companion animals, and even legal objects. As the following quotes state, we’re already seeing it some cities. The implications being that people will start to view “pets” as what they are – beyond simple objects. What follows of course, is better treatment and respect for them and for life in general.
“Changing legal terminology also reflects the cultural shift. Since 2000, several cities have officially switched from the phrase "dog owner" to "dog guardian" -- first came Boulder, Colo., then Berkeley and West Hollywood in California; Sherwood, Ariz.; Amherst, Mass.; Menomonee Falls, Wis.; the state of Rhode Island; and San Francisco.
"We want people to understand that a dog isn't a piece of garbage," Mark Bekoff, a professor of biology at the University of Colorado, told me not long after the Boulder initiative. Proponents of this change argue that children will benefit from thinking of themselves as an animal's guardian, with the responsibilities toward living beings, as opposed to inanimate objects, that the ownership term implies.”
Article:
What's the value of a pet?
While Fido and Fluffy traditionally have been seen as property, a litigious society increasingly considers our furry friends as family
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/
index.ssf?/base/editorial/115101871328510.xml&coll=7
Sunday, June 25, 2006
RICHARD LOUV
The Oregonian
Banner, a collie, was 6 weeks old and I was 2 years old when we became best friends. One day, when I was 7, my little brother, stubborn and red-faced, crawled out onto the hot asphalt road. Banner appeared, grabbed his diapers with his teeth, pulled him back into the yard and sat on him.
Banner was a worrier. When either of us was in the kind of trouble he couldn't control, he would go home. But he always came back.
That same year, I fell through the ice of the creek in the woods. Up to my waist, I tried to climb the steep and snowy bank but slipped back. Banner left. I climbed and slipped back, climbed and slipped. And then Banner's head appeared again above the bank. I remember him at one end of a fallen branch, tugging. I tell you this with some embarrassment, knowing the trickery of memory, especially a child's memory.
Just the other day, Banner came back to me again as I read a story about the Estacada man who ran over a neighbor's dog in 2004. He was convicted of animal abuse, and last month the dog's family made international headlines when they sought $1.625 million for the loss of companionship of Grizz, who they'd raised as a puppy. A victory would have turned on its head the centuries-old legal tradition that pets are merely property.
After a judge tossed out the emotional-loss portion, saying the law doesn't provide for animal companionship, a divided jury decided that Raymond E. Weaver should pay Mark Greenup and his two daughters $56,400: $50,000 in punitive damages, $6,000 for their suffering and $400 for the value of Grizz. The damages were substantially less than the $1.325 million the judge allowed but still among the highest ever awarded for a family pet.
Had that been my dog -- had it been Banner -- I would have wanted the maximum penalty. But Weaver's attorney wondered if Clackamas County wanted to "set itself up as a venue where any cat that gets run over gets a trial?"
Good question. Legally and culturally, just how far do we want to take this?
At a time when aging baby boomers are turning corgies, retrievers, Labradors and the rest into "their children" -- with regular trips to doggie day care, doggie boutiques and doggie parks -- should the law be changed to catch up with society? Or does society need a reality check?
Judges have resisted letting animal owners sue for loss of companionship, a right traditionally reserved for spouses. After all, a parent who loses a child can't make that claim in court (although a parent, unlike a pet owner, can sue for wrongful death). All sorts of furry questions
But the line is blurring. Consider the case of Dog v. Cat. In May 2005 a Seattle court awarded a woman more than $45,000 as compensation for the death of her cat, Yofi, killed in her backyard by a neighbor's dog. The neighbor had failed to adequately seal gaps in his fence, the woman's lawyers charged.
Adam Karp, founder of the Washington State Bar Association's Animal Law Section, defended the size of the award: "There tends to be a culture that says dogs are more of man's best friends and cats are aloof and can't bond, but if anyone has ever shared their bonds with a cat, they know that's utter nonsense," he told the Associated Press.
But wait. If we're looking for legal parity, why are there so few leash laws for cats? Should cat owners be sued for letting their cats roam the neighborhoods, where they kill endangered birds? If a coyote has my cat over for lunch, should I sue the city for inadequate control of coyotes? Once you start asking questions, it's hard to stop. Just like family
That's a harsh pill for many animal lovers to swallow. A 2005-2006 survey by The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association says three-quarters of dog owners consider their dog like a child or family member; more than half of cat owners feel the same way.
Eight out of 10 dog owners and 63 percent of cat owners buy gifts for their pets. Nine percent of dog owners host birthday parties for their furry friends. Doggy day-care centers are hot; in Oregon, for example, you can drop your companion off at A Dog Gone Good Place or the Barka Lounge ("Where Portland's hip dogs hang").
In the U.S., Canada and Great Britain, the newest trend is doggy dancing, or "canine freestyle," where the dog and costumed human companion move together in choreographed competition.
Changing legal terminology also reflects the cultural shift. Since 2000, several cities have officially switched from the phrase "dog owner" to "dog guardian" -- first came Boulder, Colo., then Berkeley and West Hollywood in California; Sherwood, Ariz.; Amherst, Mass.; Menomonee Falls, Wis.; the state of Rhode Island; and San Francisco.
"We want people to understand that a dog isn't a piece of garbage," Mark Bekoff, a professor of biology at the University of Colorado, told me not long after the Boulder initiative. Proponents of this change argue that children will benefit from thinking of themselves as an animal's guardian, with the responsibilities toward living beings, as opposed to inanimate objects, that the ownership term implies.
An interesting argument, but it's doubtful legal terms have much influence on the thoughts of children. I certainly don't recall mistaking Banner for an inanimate object. Costly procedures abound
If the legal line between pets and people continues to blur, will increased litigation balloon veterinary malpractice premiums, resulting in more expensive care for pets?
Vets worry about that. Yet they have no problem offering increasingly costly procedures once available only to human beings: heart pacemakers, CT scans, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, kidney transplants and hip replacements, chiropractic treatment, acupuncture, orthodontics, whitening strips, mouthwash.
One vet even recommends brushing your dog's teeth three times a day -- with garlic.
Even as the number of Americans without health insurance increases yearly, pet health insurance is becoming growth industry. So is the pet remembrance business. According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, we can commission "created diamonds," gemstones made from carbon captured during cremation; 20 percent of all created diamonds are made from pet remains. A one-half carat ring costs $2,500.
The current popularity of "The Dog Whisperer," a television reality show, comes to mind. In the program, a charismatic pet trainer helps pet owners -- er, guardians -- change the behavior of unruly or seemingly mean dogs by changing their human behavior.
By treating dogs as if they were humans, we forget the particular nature of pack behavior, we ignore the value of their dogness. By making our companions into something they're not, do we objectify them, make them objects -- things -- of our affection? How is that different, in practice, from owning them? Human emotions tricky
Love and rationality are never easy companions. More than sentiment or terminology is at play here. Our litigious society devalues what we love most by substituting a dollar value for meaning. And our fragile and far more complicated relationships with members of our own species get lumped into this brew.
One dark morning, when I was 11, I woke to the sound of my mother crying. I was convinced something had happened to my father, a troubled man. I ran down the stairs and out to the porch. Banner, carried from the road by my father, was lying there cold and stiff. I cried, but the crying was fake -- I was relieved my father was still alive.
For a long time, I felt guilty for that secret fakery. But as an adult I understand that, as much as I loved Banner, I loved my father more.
Sometimes when I return to Kansas City I walk back behind the old house, to the depression in the ground, and recall how, in the darkness before dawn, my father and I dug that simple grave. And I remember how Banner always came back.
“Changing legal terminology also reflects the cultural shift. Since 2000, several cities have officially switched from the phrase "dog owner" to "dog guardian" -- first came Boulder, Colo., then Berkeley and West Hollywood in California; Sherwood, Ariz.; Amherst, Mass.; Menomonee Falls, Wis.; the state of Rhode Island; and San Francisco.
"We want people to understand that a dog isn't a piece of garbage," Mark Bekoff, a professor of biology at the University of Colorado, told me not long after the Boulder initiative. Proponents of this change argue that children will benefit from thinking of themselves as an animal's guardian, with the responsibilities toward living beings, as opposed to inanimate objects, that the ownership term implies.”
Article:
What's the value of a pet?
While Fido and Fluffy traditionally have been seen as property, a litigious society increasingly considers our furry friends as family
http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/
index.ssf?/base/editorial/115101871328510.xml&coll=7
Sunday, June 25, 2006
RICHARD LOUV
The Oregonian
Banner, a collie, was 6 weeks old and I was 2 years old when we became best friends. One day, when I was 7, my little brother, stubborn and red-faced, crawled out onto the hot asphalt road. Banner appeared, grabbed his diapers with his teeth, pulled him back into the yard and sat on him.
Banner was a worrier. When either of us was in the kind of trouble he couldn't control, he would go home. But he always came back.
That same year, I fell through the ice of the creek in the woods. Up to my waist, I tried to climb the steep and snowy bank but slipped back. Banner left. I climbed and slipped back, climbed and slipped. And then Banner's head appeared again above the bank. I remember him at one end of a fallen branch, tugging. I tell you this with some embarrassment, knowing the trickery of memory, especially a child's memory.
Just the other day, Banner came back to me again as I read a story about the Estacada man who ran over a neighbor's dog in 2004. He was convicted of animal abuse, and last month the dog's family made international headlines when they sought $1.625 million for the loss of companionship of Grizz, who they'd raised as a puppy. A victory would have turned on its head the centuries-old legal tradition that pets are merely property.
After a judge tossed out the emotional-loss portion, saying the law doesn't provide for animal companionship, a divided jury decided that Raymond E. Weaver should pay Mark Greenup and his two daughters $56,400: $50,000 in punitive damages, $6,000 for their suffering and $400 for the value of Grizz. The damages were substantially less than the $1.325 million the judge allowed but still among the highest ever awarded for a family pet.
Had that been my dog -- had it been Banner -- I would have wanted the maximum penalty. But Weaver's attorney wondered if Clackamas County wanted to "set itself up as a venue where any cat that gets run over gets a trial?"
Good question. Legally and culturally, just how far do we want to take this?
At a time when aging baby boomers are turning corgies, retrievers, Labradors and the rest into "their children" -- with regular trips to doggie day care, doggie boutiques and doggie parks -- should the law be changed to catch up with society? Or does society need a reality check?
Judges have resisted letting animal owners sue for loss of companionship, a right traditionally reserved for spouses. After all, a parent who loses a child can't make that claim in court (although a parent, unlike a pet owner, can sue for wrongful death). All sorts of furry questions
But the line is blurring. Consider the case of Dog v. Cat. In May 2005 a Seattle court awarded a woman more than $45,000 as compensation for the death of her cat, Yofi, killed in her backyard by a neighbor's dog. The neighbor had failed to adequately seal gaps in his fence, the woman's lawyers charged.
Adam Karp, founder of the Washington State Bar Association's Animal Law Section, defended the size of the award: "There tends to be a culture that says dogs are more of man's best friends and cats are aloof and can't bond, but if anyone has ever shared their bonds with a cat, they know that's utter nonsense," he told the Associated Press.
But wait. If we're looking for legal parity, why are there so few leash laws for cats? Should cat owners be sued for letting their cats roam the neighborhoods, where they kill endangered birds? If a coyote has my cat over for lunch, should I sue the city for inadequate control of coyotes? Once you start asking questions, it's hard to stop. Just like family
That's a harsh pill for many animal lovers to swallow. A 2005-2006 survey by The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association says three-quarters of dog owners consider their dog like a child or family member; more than half of cat owners feel the same way.
Eight out of 10 dog owners and 63 percent of cat owners buy gifts for their pets. Nine percent of dog owners host birthday parties for their furry friends. Doggy day-care centers are hot; in Oregon, for example, you can drop your companion off at A Dog Gone Good Place or the Barka Lounge ("Where Portland's hip dogs hang").
In the U.S., Canada and Great Britain, the newest trend is doggy dancing, or "canine freestyle," where the dog and costumed human companion move together in choreographed competition.
Changing legal terminology also reflects the cultural shift. Since 2000, several cities have officially switched from the phrase "dog owner" to "dog guardian" -- first came Boulder, Colo., then Berkeley and West Hollywood in California; Sherwood, Ariz.; Amherst, Mass.; Menomonee Falls, Wis.; the state of Rhode Island; and San Francisco.
"We want people to understand that a dog isn't a piece of garbage," Mark Bekoff, a professor of biology at the University of Colorado, told me not long after the Boulder initiative. Proponents of this change argue that children will benefit from thinking of themselves as an animal's guardian, with the responsibilities toward living beings, as opposed to inanimate objects, that the ownership term implies.
An interesting argument, but it's doubtful legal terms have much influence on the thoughts of children. I certainly don't recall mistaking Banner for an inanimate object. Costly procedures abound
If the legal line between pets and people continues to blur, will increased litigation balloon veterinary malpractice premiums, resulting in more expensive care for pets?
Vets worry about that. Yet they have no problem offering increasingly costly procedures once available only to human beings: heart pacemakers, CT scans, chemotherapy, radiation treatment, kidney transplants and hip replacements, chiropractic treatment, acupuncture, orthodontics, whitening strips, mouthwash.
One vet even recommends brushing your dog's teeth three times a day -- with garlic.
Even as the number of Americans without health insurance increases yearly, pet health insurance is becoming growth industry. So is the pet remembrance business. According to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, we can commission "created diamonds," gemstones made from carbon captured during cremation; 20 percent of all created diamonds are made from pet remains. A one-half carat ring costs $2,500.
The current popularity of "The Dog Whisperer," a television reality show, comes to mind. In the program, a charismatic pet trainer helps pet owners -- er, guardians -- change the behavior of unruly or seemingly mean dogs by changing their human behavior.
By treating dogs as if they were humans, we forget the particular nature of pack behavior, we ignore the value of their dogness. By making our companions into something they're not, do we objectify them, make them objects -- things -- of our affection? How is that different, in practice, from owning them? Human emotions tricky
Love and rationality are never easy companions. More than sentiment or terminology is at play here. Our litigious society devalues what we love most by substituting a dollar value for meaning. And our fragile and far more complicated relationships with members of our own species get lumped into this brew.
One dark morning, when I was 11, I woke to the sound of my mother crying. I was convinced something had happened to my father, a troubled man. I ran down the stairs and out to the porch. Banner, carried from the road by my father, was lying there cold and stiff. I cried, but the crying was fake -- I was relieved my father was still alive.
For a long time, I felt guilty for that secret fakery. But as an adult I understand that, as much as I loved Banner, I loved my father more.
Sometimes when I return to Kansas City I walk back behind the old house, to the depression in the ground, and recall how, in the darkness before dawn, my father and I dug that simple grave. And I remember how Banner always came back.
Kangaroo Island Near Australia Takes on Feral Cat Issue by Requiring Microchipping and then Killing of those Cats Without a Chip
It would be nice if they could tackle the issue another way.
Article:
Kangaroo Is cats to be microchipped
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1672642.htm
Domestic cats on Kangaroo Island will be required by law to be microchipped and contained in a move to combat the feral cat problem.
It is the first council region in South Australia to introduce the legislation, which applies from July 1.
The feral animal project officer on Kangaroo Island, Pip Masters, says they will now be able to start a trapping program in the townships.
"Any cats that are caught will have to scanned for microchips because every domestic cat now will be microchipped," he said.
"If they're not owned and they don't look like they're somebody's pet cat, they'll be put down using injection."
Article:
Kangaroo Is cats to be microchipped
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1672642.htm
Domestic cats on Kangaroo Island will be required by law to be microchipped and contained in a move to combat the feral cat problem.
It is the first council region in South Australia to introduce the legislation, which applies from July 1.
The feral animal project officer on Kangaroo Island, Pip Masters, says they will now be able to start a trapping program in the townships.
"Any cats that are caught will have to scanned for microchips because every domestic cat now will be microchipped," he said.
"If they're not owned and they don't look like they're somebody's pet cat, they'll be put down using injection."
Designer Dogs: Big Price tags and Big Health Problems Down the Road: The Reason, Human Vanity
I won’t go too deeply into the obvious problem with going after designer dogs while thousands are killed daily in pounds. Quite simply, it’s pure human vanity and idiocy to do such a selfish act.
Article:
Designer dogs: Fashionable hybrids may face problems later
http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3648357
Published 06/27/2006
By JESSICA FISCHER -Kingsport Times-News
Years ago, puppies resulting from a romantic encounter between a cocker spaniel and the handsome poodle down the street were called mutts, Heinz 57s. You couldn't give them away, much less sell them.
Today, these "designer" dogs sport price tags as highfalutin' as their names; cockapoos, Labradoodles (Labrador retriever and poodle mixes), shorkies (a cross between a schnauzer and a poodle) and puggles (a pug and beagle blend) can fetch upwards of $1,000 - more than what many of their pure-bred parents cost.
Yet there are plenty of people waiting in line to open their wallets for one of these mixed-breed pups, the season's trendiest accessory.
Singer Jessica Simpson carries her maltipoo (a cross between a Maltese and a miniature poodle) around in a Louis Vuitton bag, while actor Jake Gyllenhaal couldn't leave the set of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" without gushing about his pride and joy, a cute little puggle named Boo Radley.
But designer dogs aren't just the playthings of the rich and famous. They're hot among the non-celebrity set, too.
Kingsport's Steve and Stephanie Bellner fell in love with Macy, their 8-month-old, eight-pound maltipoo with soulful brown eyes and long, wavy black locks, when they spotted a photo of her on the Eastman classifieds Web site last fall.
A few weeks after their beloved Chihuahua Oscar died, the Bellners began entertaining the thought of getting another dog, and after meeting their daughter's coach's maltipoo, they were sold on the breed's appearance, intelligence and warm personality. The fact that maltipoos and other poodle hybrids shed very little was also a plus for Stephanie, who is allergic to some dogs.
"My daughter says that I dote more on Macy than I do on her," Stephanie said, laughing. "But her personality is just so sweet, so playful. She cracks me up. She's brought life to the house."
The Bellners aren't alone in their love for designer dogs.
The American Canine Hybrid Club, the designer dog world's version of the American Kennel Club, is registering about 500 litters of hybrid pups a month, double what it was a year ago. The company offers $20 certificates of authenticity to people who can demonstrate they own the offspring of two different purebred dogs.
There's even a concerted effort under way to have hybrids recognized by the AKC.
But not everyone is jumping on the designer dog bandwagon.
Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for companion animals at the Humane Society of the United States, urges potential puppy owners to exercise caution when dealing with breeders who claim that their hybrids are free from the kinds of genetic afflictions and character flaws that sometimes plague pure-bred breeds - one of the qualities that has vaulted many designer dogs to stardom.
"We want consumers to understand that so-called ‘hybrid' puppies are not protected from genetic diseases," Shain said. "They are just as likely to have the same problems that other puppies have who come from large-scale, high-volume breeding, especially since the demand is massive, and puppy mills are responding by pumping out the hybrid-du-jour as quickly as possible. Factory breeding like this increases the chances of a puppy having genetic, physical and emotional problems, which may not be apparent at first."
Claims that these dogs are healthier than their pure-bred counterparts can be misleading, agrees Dr. Karen Tobias, a veterinarian at the University of Tennessee's School of Veterinary Medicine and co-host of the show "Barkitecture" on the DIY Network.
"Certainly a pug has more risk of having airway problems than beagles because of its short face, so a puggle might have less airway problems - if it has more of the beagle gene for facial development," Tobias said. "On the other hand, Labradoodles are not truly hypoallergenic, as claimed by many Web sites. All dogs shed skin cells, which are the true cause of allergies in people, so reaction to these dogs is really related to how much skin cells are getting in the environment.
"Bottom line is, by breeding two healthy dogs with no structural, functional or genetic problems that could lead to health issues, you are likely to get healthy pups. This occurs with purebreds as well as mixed breed dogs. By raising those dogs in a healthy environment with appropriate training, you are likely to get a healthy happy dog, whether they are mixed breed or pure-bred."
There's also concern that the popularity of designer dogs is encouraging "backyard breeders" who lack credentials and genetics expertise to take a stab at producing the novelty puppies, leading to poorly bred pups and animal cruelty.
Crossing a pug with a Pekingese, for example, can produce disastrous consequences. Both breeds have eyes that easily pop out of the socket to rest on the cheek. Surgery is required to fix the injury, often at the cost of the dogs' sight. Breeding the two could yield a dog that literally has its eyes falling out. A Newfoundland and a St. Bernard could generate a crippled giant, since both of these breeds are plagued with hip dysplasia, a genetic disorder that often requires hip replacement before the dog is a year old.
Labrador retrievers should be OFA certified for hip dysplasia at 2 years of age. Breeding of Labradors with hip dysplasia to standard poodles is more likely to result in development of hip dysplasia in these offspring. Since standard poodles rarely have hip dysplasia, the trait could be carelessly introduced into the offspring gene pool."
There are also those who decry popularizing these specially bred dogs - mutts with marketing, they call them - when thousands of puppies are languishing in shelters. And because many people are in such a rush to get their hands on one of these designer dogs that they don't take the time to learn about the needs and personalities of the breed, some designer dogs end up in shelters.
"We are concerned that people are caught up in the trend and not doing research on the needs and personalities of the breed," Shain said. "History is proof that when people purchase dogs based on looks alone, the animal ultimately ends up being given away to a shelter, adding to the over 4 million homeless dogs already in shelters. If you have done your research and have your heart set on a particular breed, one of four dogs in shelters is a purebred - some even hybrids."
Proponents of hybrids, however, argue that the dogs' lineage can be easily traced and that their characteristics and appearance are much more predictable than those of pound puppies.
"From a veterinarian's standpoint, the major reasons dogs are brought to animal shelters are because they have gotten too big, because the owners didn't realize how much work a puppy or young adult dog would take and because of behavioral issues," Tobias said. "If folks want to guarantee what type, size and personality of dog they want to get, their best option is to adopt an adult dog from a rescue agency or animal shelter that knows the animals and can match it with the potential owner."
Article:
Designer dogs: Fashionable hybrids may face problems later
http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3648357
Published 06/27/2006
By JESSICA FISCHER -Kingsport Times-News
Years ago, puppies resulting from a romantic encounter between a cocker spaniel and the handsome poodle down the street were called mutts, Heinz 57s. You couldn't give them away, much less sell them.
Today, these "designer" dogs sport price tags as highfalutin' as their names; cockapoos, Labradoodles (Labrador retriever and poodle mixes), shorkies (a cross between a schnauzer and a poodle) and puggles (a pug and beagle blend) can fetch upwards of $1,000 - more than what many of their pure-bred parents cost.
Yet there are plenty of people waiting in line to open their wallets for one of these mixed-breed pups, the season's trendiest accessory.
Singer Jessica Simpson carries her maltipoo (a cross between a Maltese and a miniature poodle) around in a Louis Vuitton bag, while actor Jake Gyllenhaal couldn't leave the set of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" without gushing about his pride and joy, a cute little puggle named Boo Radley.
But designer dogs aren't just the playthings of the rich and famous. They're hot among the non-celebrity set, too.
Kingsport's Steve and Stephanie Bellner fell in love with Macy, their 8-month-old, eight-pound maltipoo with soulful brown eyes and long, wavy black locks, when they spotted a photo of her on the Eastman classifieds Web site last fall.
A few weeks after their beloved Chihuahua Oscar died, the Bellners began entertaining the thought of getting another dog, and after meeting their daughter's coach's maltipoo, they were sold on the breed's appearance, intelligence and warm personality. The fact that maltipoos and other poodle hybrids shed very little was also a plus for Stephanie, who is allergic to some dogs.
"My daughter says that I dote more on Macy than I do on her," Stephanie said, laughing. "But her personality is just so sweet, so playful. She cracks me up. She's brought life to the house."
The Bellners aren't alone in their love for designer dogs.
The American Canine Hybrid Club, the designer dog world's version of the American Kennel Club, is registering about 500 litters of hybrid pups a month, double what it was a year ago. The company offers $20 certificates of authenticity to people who can demonstrate they own the offspring of two different purebred dogs.
There's even a concerted effort under way to have hybrids recognized by the AKC.
But not everyone is jumping on the designer dog bandwagon.
Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for companion animals at the Humane Society of the United States, urges potential puppy owners to exercise caution when dealing with breeders who claim that their hybrids are free from the kinds of genetic afflictions and character flaws that sometimes plague pure-bred breeds - one of the qualities that has vaulted many designer dogs to stardom.
"We want consumers to understand that so-called ‘hybrid' puppies are not protected from genetic diseases," Shain said. "They are just as likely to have the same problems that other puppies have who come from large-scale, high-volume breeding, especially since the demand is massive, and puppy mills are responding by pumping out the hybrid-du-jour as quickly as possible. Factory breeding like this increases the chances of a puppy having genetic, physical and emotional problems, which may not be apparent at first."
Claims that these dogs are healthier than their pure-bred counterparts can be misleading, agrees Dr. Karen Tobias, a veterinarian at the University of Tennessee's School of Veterinary Medicine and co-host of the show "Barkitecture" on the DIY Network.
"Certainly a pug has more risk of having airway problems than beagles because of its short face, so a puggle might have less airway problems - if it has more of the beagle gene for facial development," Tobias said. "On the other hand, Labradoodles are not truly hypoallergenic, as claimed by many Web sites. All dogs shed skin cells, which are the true cause of allergies in people, so reaction to these dogs is really related to how much skin cells are getting in the environment.
"Bottom line is, by breeding two healthy dogs with no structural, functional or genetic problems that could lead to health issues, you are likely to get healthy pups. This occurs with purebreds as well as mixed breed dogs. By raising those dogs in a healthy environment with appropriate training, you are likely to get a healthy happy dog, whether they are mixed breed or pure-bred."
There's also concern that the popularity of designer dogs is encouraging "backyard breeders" who lack credentials and genetics expertise to take a stab at producing the novelty puppies, leading to poorly bred pups and animal cruelty.
Crossing a pug with a Pekingese, for example, can produce disastrous consequences. Both breeds have eyes that easily pop out of the socket to rest on the cheek. Surgery is required to fix the injury, often at the cost of the dogs' sight. Breeding the two could yield a dog that literally has its eyes falling out. A Newfoundland and a St. Bernard could generate a crippled giant, since both of these breeds are plagued with hip dysplasia, a genetic disorder that often requires hip replacement before the dog is a year old.
Labrador retrievers should be OFA certified for hip dysplasia at 2 years of age. Breeding of Labradors with hip dysplasia to standard poodles is more likely to result in development of hip dysplasia in these offspring. Since standard poodles rarely have hip dysplasia, the trait could be carelessly introduced into the offspring gene pool."
There are also those who decry popularizing these specially bred dogs - mutts with marketing, they call them - when thousands of puppies are languishing in shelters. And because many people are in such a rush to get their hands on one of these designer dogs that they don't take the time to learn about the needs and personalities of the breed, some designer dogs end up in shelters.
"We are concerned that people are caught up in the trend and not doing research on the needs and personalities of the breed," Shain said. "History is proof that when people purchase dogs based on looks alone, the animal ultimately ends up being given away to a shelter, adding to the over 4 million homeless dogs already in shelters. If you have done your research and have your heart set on a particular breed, one of four dogs in shelters is a purebred - some even hybrids."
Proponents of hybrids, however, argue that the dogs' lineage can be easily traced and that their characteristics and appearance are much more predictable than those of pound puppies.
"From a veterinarian's standpoint, the major reasons dogs are brought to animal shelters are because they have gotten too big, because the owners didn't realize how much work a puppy or young adult dog would take and because of behavioral issues," Tobias said. "If folks want to guarantee what type, size and personality of dog they want to get, their best option is to adopt an adult dog from a rescue agency or animal shelter that knows the animals and can match it with the potential owner."
Monday, June 26, 2006
Hawaii Makes Major Steps and Signs into Law Two Laws to Help Abused Companion Animals
Yes, they’re not as strong as most would like to see, but they lead in the right direction. Please read on to learn more.
Article:
2 animal rights laws signed on pet holiday
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/24/news/story10.html
By Leila Fujimori
lfujimori@starbulletin.com
Gov. Linda Lingle signed two animal rights bills into law yesterday during Take Your Pet to Work Day.
Act 239 (Senate Bill 2924, Conference Draft 1) allows a law enforcement officer with a search warrant to enter property where an animal is believed to be abused or neglected to allow the animal to be provided with food, water and emergency medical care.
The court also can seize the animal and place it in a recognized shelter or organization to ensure it receives proper care.
The new law also provides for a hearing process that allows an animal cruelty prevention organization to ask the court for the forfeiture of the animal before any criminal conviction of its owner.
The owner can avoid forfeiture of the animal by posting a security bond (for the animal's care) or by showing the court that alternative care for the animal has been made.
Act 238 (SB 2930, House Draft 1) aims to reimburse organizations charged with caring for impounded animals.
Under the law, if an owner were ordered to surrender an animal to a care facility, the court could allow the caregiver to seek reimbursement from the owner for reasonable costs to care, feed and house the animal.
In one case, the Hawaiian Humane Society incurred several hundred thousand dollars' worth of costs to care for 69 abused animals but was never reimbursed. The owner was later allowed to sell the dogs.
"For many people our pets are beloved members of our families," said the governor, who owns two cats: a stray she found in Hilo and another adopted from the humane society.
Article:
2 animal rights laws signed on pet holiday
http://starbulletin.com/2006/06/24/news/story10.html
By Leila Fujimori
lfujimori@starbulletin.com
Gov. Linda Lingle signed two animal rights bills into law yesterday during Take Your Pet to Work Day.
Act 239 (Senate Bill 2924, Conference Draft 1) allows a law enforcement officer with a search warrant to enter property where an animal is believed to be abused or neglected to allow the animal to be provided with food, water and emergency medical care.
The court also can seize the animal and place it in a recognized shelter or organization to ensure it receives proper care.
The new law also provides for a hearing process that allows an animal cruelty prevention organization to ask the court for the forfeiture of the animal before any criminal conviction of its owner.
The owner can avoid forfeiture of the animal by posting a security bond (for the animal's care) or by showing the court that alternative care for the animal has been made.
Act 238 (SB 2930, House Draft 1) aims to reimburse organizations charged with caring for impounded animals.
Under the law, if an owner were ordered to surrender an animal to a care facility, the court could allow the caregiver to seek reimbursement from the owner for reasonable costs to care, feed and house the animal.
In one case, the Hawaiian Humane Society incurred several hundred thousand dollars' worth of costs to care for 69 abused animals but was never reimbursed. The owner was later allowed to sell the dogs.
"For many people our pets are beloved members of our families," said the governor, who owns two cats: a stray she found in Hilo and another adopted from the humane society.
Beluga Sturgeon Hearty to Have Survived from Prehistoric Times but Now on the Brink of Extinction Due to the Insatiable Appetite of Wealthy for Caviar
I’ve never seen the interest in eating fish eggs. Even more, I simply can’t understand why eggs from one species would somehow be more valuable than from another.
A few facts from the article below:
Beluga, whose roe is reputedly the world's most expensive delicacy, is the most threatened species of sturgeon. And the population in the Caspian _ which provides 90 percent of beluga caviar _ "got hammered very fast," said Phaedra Doukakis, a Pew Institute research scientist.
Beluga, the largest fish in the Caspian, can live over 100 years and grow to nearly 20 feet. But these days few survive longer than 20 years.
In Kazakhstan, one of the five nations ringing the Caspian, Akhat Nimatov, director of a state-run sturgeon hatchery that works with the Pew Institute, said the beluga population has declined 70 percent over the past 15 years.
He said fishermen were catching on average one egg-bearing female to seven males. The males are either thrown back into the sea or sold for their flesh.
Article:
Scientists Hope to Save Caspian Beluga
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3999428.html
By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
ABOARD THE NEPTUNE ON THE CASPIAN SEA — Three men struggle to lift a squirming, 6 1/2-foot gray fish with a pointy nose and jagged spine and spill it into the Caspian's green water. Off it swims with two others, all trailing satellite receivers wired to their dorsal fins.
Thus begins a pilot study that scientists hope will yield valuable information about a species of sturgeon hearty enough to have survived from prehistoric times but now on the brink of extinction due to the insatiable appetite of the well-to-do for caviar.
If the three beluga sturgeon can avoid poachers' nets and their data be successfully retrieved, the University of Miami's Pew Institute for Ocean Science will tag more of the fish for the first comprehensive study of the beluga population in this Central Asian sea.
A worldwide study released by the Pew Institute last year said most major sturgeon fisheries are catching 85 percent less fish than at their peak in the late 1970s. It called for a total ban on fishing for most endangered species and reducing fishing pressure on others.
Beluga, whose roe is reputedly the world's most expensive delicacy, is the most threatened species of sturgeon. And the population in the Caspian _ which provides 90 percent of beluga caviar _ "got hammered very fast," said Phaedra Doukakis, a Pew Institute research scientist.
"The peak and decline was very rapid," she said.
There is no reliable estimate of how many Caspian beluga remain.
According to the Pew Institute, they numbered around 375,000 in 2001, with just 55,000 of them adults.
That year, scientists from Russia and Iran _ the countries that benefit most from the beluga caviar trade _ came up with a figure of 9.3 million. In 2002, they estimated more than 11 million.
Doukakis dismissed those figures as "a fantasy." Scientists widely criticized the estimates and Russia and Iran have not issued any numbers since.
Beluga, the largest fish in the Caspian, can live over 100 years and grow to nearly 20 feet. But these days few survive longer than 20 years.
In Kazakhstan, one of the five nations ringing the Caspian, Akhat Nimatov, director of a state-run sturgeon hatchery that works with the Pew Institute, said the beluga population has declined 70 percent over the past 15 years.
He said fishermen were catching on average one egg-bearing female to seven males. The males are either thrown back into the sea or sold for their flesh.
The U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which sets sturgeon fishing quotas each year, imposed a ban on taking sturgeon and exporting caviar from the Caspian this year after the surrounding states failed to submit a convincing plan to protect the fish.
The Persian species concentrated in Iranian waters was exempted from the ban because it is not endangered.
Doukakis said the ban would not help because the treaty, known as CITES, has no tools to implement its rules and because "there seem to be enough outlets for illegal trade or a big enough domestic market."
The caviar trade is so lucrative it makes poaching hard to resist and control. One female beluga produces up to 17 percent of her total weight in caviar. A pound of beluga caviar costs an average $2,700 in Europe and North America.
The damage from legal fishing is also significant. The Caspian sturgeon was first put under heavy pressure during the Soviet era. But the 1991 Soviet collapse didn't make things better as the emergence of three more states on the Caspian shores _ Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan _ has meant fragmented regulation.
Another serious concern for sturgeon stocks is environmental stress from the oil boom in the northern Caspian, an area where sturgeon migrate in summer to fatten in shallow waters and spawn in Kazakhstan's and Russia's Ural and Volga Rivers.
With the Soviet collapse, Western companies have moved in to work those oil and natural gas fields, which are the third-largest untapped reserves in the world.
The globe's biggest oil project now under way is in the northern Caspian, where an international consortium, Agip KCO, is preparing to start commercial oil production at the giant Kashagan field in Kazakh territorial waters.
Agip KCO is the main sponsor of the Pew Institute's Caspian sturgeon research with a grant of "a few hundred thousand dollars," Doukakis said.
The satellite tags, which have been in use for about 10 years for tracking other fish species, will be gathering data on the beluga's migration habits and information on the depth and light level where it travels.
The microphone-shaped, 7-inch tags _ costing $3,400 each _ are attached at the Kazakh state hatchery in Atyrau, where beluga that have been caught are brought to lay eggs and then freed again.
The tags are programmed to drop off the fish, one after another, at three-month intervals. The tag floats to the surface and transmits its data to a satellite.
The data could help define the beluga's preferred areas, which could then be turned into protected zones, said Daniel Erickson of the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society, an expert on satellite tagging. It will also define beluga habitat in relation to oil drilling.
"I'm thrilled," Doukakis said. "Now we have to sit and wait."
A few facts from the article below:
Beluga, whose roe is reputedly the world's most expensive delicacy, is the most threatened species of sturgeon. And the population in the Caspian _ which provides 90 percent of beluga caviar _ "got hammered very fast," said Phaedra Doukakis, a Pew Institute research scientist.
Beluga, the largest fish in the Caspian, can live over 100 years and grow to nearly 20 feet. But these days few survive longer than 20 years.
In Kazakhstan, one of the five nations ringing the Caspian, Akhat Nimatov, director of a state-run sturgeon hatchery that works with the Pew Institute, said the beluga population has declined 70 percent over the past 15 years.
He said fishermen were catching on average one egg-bearing female to seven males. The males are either thrown back into the sea or sold for their flesh.
Article:
Scientists Hope to Save Caspian Beluga
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3999428.html
By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
ABOARD THE NEPTUNE ON THE CASPIAN SEA — Three men struggle to lift a squirming, 6 1/2-foot gray fish with a pointy nose and jagged spine and spill it into the Caspian's green water. Off it swims with two others, all trailing satellite receivers wired to their dorsal fins.
Thus begins a pilot study that scientists hope will yield valuable information about a species of sturgeon hearty enough to have survived from prehistoric times but now on the brink of extinction due to the insatiable appetite of the well-to-do for caviar.
If the three beluga sturgeon can avoid poachers' nets and their data be successfully retrieved, the University of Miami's Pew Institute for Ocean Science will tag more of the fish for the first comprehensive study of the beluga population in this Central Asian sea.
A worldwide study released by the Pew Institute last year said most major sturgeon fisheries are catching 85 percent less fish than at their peak in the late 1970s. It called for a total ban on fishing for most endangered species and reducing fishing pressure on others.
Beluga, whose roe is reputedly the world's most expensive delicacy, is the most threatened species of sturgeon. And the population in the Caspian _ which provides 90 percent of beluga caviar _ "got hammered very fast," said Phaedra Doukakis, a Pew Institute research scientist.
"The peak and decline was very rapid," she said.
There is no reliable estimate of how many Caspian beluga remain.
According to the Pew Institute, they numbered around 375,000 in 2001, with just 55,000 of them adults.
That year, scientists from Russia and Iran _ the countries that benefit most from the beluga caviar trade _ came up with a figure of 9.3 million. In 2002, they estimated more than 11 million.
Doukakis dismissed those figures as "a fantasy." Scientists widely criticized the estimates and Russia and Iran have not issued any numbers since.
Beluga, the largest fish in the Caspian, can live over 100 years and grow to nearly 20 feet. But these days few survive longer than 20 years.
In Kazakhstan, one of the five nations ringing the Caspian, Akhat Nimatov, director of a state-run sturgeon hatchery that works with the Pew Institute, said the beluga population has declined 70 percent over the past 15 years.
He said fishermen were catching on average one egg-bearing female to seven males. The males are either thrown back into the sea or sold for their flesh.
The U.N. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which sets sturgeon fishing quotas each year, imposed a ban on taking sturgeon and exporting caviar from the Caspian this year after the surrounding states failed to submit a convincing plan to protect the fish.
The Persian species concentrated in Iranian waters was exempted from the ban because it is not endangered.
Doukakis said the ban would not help because the treaty, known as CITES, has no tools to implement its rules and because "there seem to be enough outlets for illegal trade or a big enough domestic market."
The caviar trade is so lucrative it makes poaching hard to resist and control. One female beluga produces up to 17 percent of her total weight in caviar. A pound of beluga caviar costs an average $2,700 in Europe and North America.
The damage from legal fishing is also significant. The Caspian sturgeon was first put under heavy pressure during the Soviet era. But the 1991 Soviet collapse didn't make things better as the emergence of three more states on the Caspian shores _ Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan _ has meant fragmented regulation.
Another serious concern for sturgeon stocks is environmental stress from the oil boom in the northern Caspian, an area where sturgeon migrate in summer to fatten in shallow waters and spawn in Kazakhstan's and Russia's Ural and Volga Rivers.
With the Soviet collapse, Western companies have moved in to work those oil and natural gas fields, which are the third-largest untapped reserves in the world.
The globe's biggest oil project now under way is in the northern Caspian, where an international consortium, Agip KCO, is preparing to start commercial oil production at the giant Kashagan field in Kazakh territorial waters.
Agip KCO is the main sponsor of the Pew Institute's Caspian sturgeon research with a grant of "a few hundred thousand dollars," Doukakis said.
The satellite tags, which have been in use for about 10 years for tracking other fish species, will be gathering data on the beluga's migration habits and information on the depth and light level where it travels.
The microphone-shaped, 7-inch tags _ costing $3,400 each _ are attached at the Kazakh state hatchery in Atyrau, where beluga that have been caught are brought to lay eggs and then freed again.
The tags are programmed to drop off the fish, one after another, at three-month intervals. The tag floats to the surface and transmits its data to a satellite.
The data could help define the beluga's preferred areas, which could then be turned into protected zones, said Daniel Erickson of the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society, an expert on satellite tagging. It will also define beluga habitat in relation to oil drilling.
"I'm thrilled," Doukakis said. "Now we have to sit and wait."
For Two And A Half Thousand Dollars, Wellington Zoo in New Zealand Rents Out Cheetahs for Parties
I won’t even waste my time to state how ridiculous this is.
Article:
Cheetah rental upsets animal rights campaigners
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/
200606251329/14865914
Posted at 1:29pm on 25 Jun 2006
Animal rights campaigners are up in arms over a scheme being run by Wellington Zoo, which allows people to rent its cheetahs for special events.
For two and a half thousand dollars, the zoo hires out the big cats for an "off-site cheetah encounter", billing the opportunity on its website as a "unique option for functions, educational sessions and other events."
Campaign director of Save Animals from Exploitation, Hans Kriek says it is akin to turning the animals into circus performers, and poses a safety risk.
Article:
Cheetah rental upsets animal rights campaigners
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/
200606251329/14865914
Posted at 1:29pm on 25 Jun 2006
Animal rights campaigners are up in arms over a scheme being run by Wellington Zoo, which allows people to rent its cheetahs for special events.
For two and a half thousand dollars, the zoo hires out the big cats for an "off-site cheetah encounter", billing the opportunity on its website as a "unique option for functions, educational sessions and other events."
Campaign director of Save Animals from Exploitation, Hans Kriek says it is akin to turning the animals into circus performers, and poses a safety risk.
For First Time in Decades, Japan and Its Pro-Whaling Allies Now Hold the Majority of Votes at the International Whaling Commission: Last Way to Help
This is from a different group. Please read on and act:
WDCS e-newsletter – we urgently need your help to protect whales.
Yesterday, we witnessed a huge blow for the conservation of whales, as pro-whaling nations re-took control of the International Whaling Commission.
For the first time in decades, Japan and its pro-whaling allies now hold the majority of votes at the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the international body that regulates whaling. Yesterday, they won a vote in favour of the “St Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, which states that the current ban on commercial whaling is unnecessary, that whales are out-competing humans for fish and that conservation groups are a threat to governments.
The ban on commercial whaling was brought into effect 20 years ago to save whales decimated by decades of unregulated and unsustainable whaling. It is now dangerously close to being overturned. With pro-whaling nations now holding the majority of votes, the IWC will quickly be driven to abandon important conservation and welfare measures.
Not only is whaling incurably inhumane, it has been proved to be impossible to regulate. The IWC’s previous attempts to control commercial whaling under a pro-whaling majority were so disastrous that some populations have still not recovered from the slaughter.
This is a wake up call for the world to take back the IWC and protect whales before it is too late!
The vote was close, with 33 votes in favour and 32 against. All member states of the European Union opposed the statement except Denmark which voted in favour. Denmark’s vote tipped the majority in favour of the whalers.
You can help the world’s whales at this crucial time!
Send a protest e-mail to the Prime Minister of Denmark calling on him to retract his country’s vote.
http://uk.wdcs.org/go/N060619whaling1
Please adopt a whale.
http://uk.wdcs.org/go/N060619aaw
Or donate to our campaign.
http://uk.wdcs.org/go/N060619donate
WDCS e-newsletter – we urgently need your help to protect whales.
Yesterday, we witnessed a huge blow for the conservation of whales, as pro-whaling nations re-took control of the International Whaling Commission.
For the first time in decades, Japan and its pro-whaling allies now hold the majority of votes at the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the international body that regulates whaling. Yesterday, they won a vote in favour of the “St Kitts and Nevis Declaration”, which states that the current ban on commercial whaling is unnecessary, that whales are out-competing humans for fish and that conservation groups are a threat to governments.
The ban on commercial whaling was brought into effect 20 years ago to save whales decimated by decades of unregulated and unsustainable whaling. It is now dangerously close to being overturned. With pro-whaling nations now holding the majority of votes, the IWC will quickly be driven to abandon important conservation and welfare measures.
Not only is whaling incurably inhumane, it has been proved to be impossible to regulate. The IWC’s previous attempts to control commercial whaling under a pro-whaling majority were so disastrous that some populations have still not recovered from the slaughter.
This is a wake up call for the world to take back the IWC and protect whales before it is too late!
The vote was close, with 33 votes in favour and 32 against. All member states of the European Union opposed the statement except Denmark which voted in favour. Denmark’s vote tipped the majority in favour of the whalers.
You can help the world’s whales at this crucial time!
Send a protest e-mail to the Prime Minister of Denmark calling on him to retract his country’s vote.
http://uk.wdcs.org/go/N060619whaling1
Please adopt a whale.
http://uk.wdcs.org/go/N060619aaw
Or donate to our campaign.
http://uk.wdcs.org/go/N060619donate
Friday, June 23, 2006
Man Will Start a Eight-Day Cycle to Raise as Much as Possible for a Charity to Help Asia Moon Bears: What are Moon Bears and How Can You Help?
Free and happy Moon Bear
Not so free and not so happy Moon Bear in very small cage
Not so free and not so happy Moon Bear in very small cage
This is an amazing action. Truly getting off your couch and doing something.
If you would like to sponsor Leon you can do so by logging onto his website www.justgiving.com/leonmoore or call 07989 607770.
What are Asiatic Moon Bears and why are they in need of help?
Below you will find a synopsis that will explain Moon Bears and why they are in need of help. This comes from http://www.animalsasia.org/index.php?module=2&menupos=7&lg=en
Please visit this page and this group – Animals Asia – to find out more about this horrible issue.
And again, if you would like to sponsor Leon you can do so by logging onto his website www.justgiving.com/leonmoore or call 07989 607770.
“In countries across Asia, thousands of bears live a life of torture on bear farms, so that their bile can be extracted and used in Traditional Medicine to cure ailments ranging from headaches to hemorrhoids. Bears are confined in cages which vary from agonizingly tiny "crush" cages to larger pens, all of which cause terrible physical and mental suffering. But their torment does not end there.....the bears are subjected to painful methods of bile extraction which involve crude surgery to implant a steel catheter into the abdomen or the creation of a permanent hole in the abdomen known as the "free-dripping" technique. Many bears die as a result of the unsanitary surgery and those that survive spend the rest of their lives suffering in pain and deprivation. Whilst the methods of farming bears for their bile vary across Asia and are continually 'evolving', ALL of them are incredibly cruel and totally unacceptable.”
Article:
Leon pedals for bear bid
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/
By Kevin Burchall
AN ANIMAL rights campaigner is set to embark on the toughest fundraising challenge of his life in an effort to help the plight of bears in the Far East.
Leon Moore, 30, of Marlowe Avenue, Park North, will start a gruelling eight-day cycle from John O'Groats to Lands End on Monday and hopes to raise as much cash as possible for the charity Asia Bears.
Leon, a doorman for a nightclub in Bristol, said: "The route I'm cycling is about 950 miles in total and I plan to do it in eight days.
"The charity is raising money for the Moon Bears, which are bears that are kept on farms in Asia.
continued...
"The bears are caged up in crush cages so they cannot move and they are kept in those cages for their whole lives.
"They have 18-inch tubes put in their stomachs, which extract their bile to be used in medicines. I read about the bears and I was so appalled I had to do something about it."
Leon has previously raised money to stamp out cruelty to monkeys, but his latest fundraising idea is by far the most gruelling both physically and personally.
"I've done fundraising for whole days, but never anything this big," he said.
"I don't normally cycle, but I've been out on the bike for the last seven months every day.
"I basically do between two and four hours training a day on the push bike and I think I underestimated how hard it was going to be.
"I didn't realise how much it was going to take out of me, but it has also put a big strain on my relationship.
"I've literally been coming home from work, going straight out on the bike and then going to bed at about 7pm every night because I'm so knackered."
But Leon's partner, 36-year-old Sarah Powell, has proved to be a tower of strength to him.
"Sarah is going to drive a van, which has been donated by Stuart Boyer of M4 Self Drive, while I complete the bike ride just to make sure I'm safe and sound," Leon said.
"I'll be doing something like 100 miles a day, but I'm sure it will be worth it once I've finished."
If you would like to sponsor Leon you can do so by logging onto his website www.justgiving.com/leonmoore or call 07989 607770.
Jane Goodall and Researchers Send Letter to Federal Officials to Oppose Yerkes' Proposal to Do Aids-Related Research on Sooty Mangabeys
It’s unbelievable that research groups are still wasting resources on AIDs research on other primates. As it states here, these primates are “…natural carriers of a form of the AIDS virus but don't get sick from it.” So, in other words, no benefit to doing the research.
In addition, these primates are listed as endangered! So, with these points stated, it seems just a strange situation in which resources and lives are wasted.
Article:
AIDS research on monkey group questioned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060622/
ap_on_sc/research_monkeys_1
By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 22, 2:00 PM ET
ATLANTA - Primate expert Jane Goodall and 18 other researchers sent a letter to federal officials urging them to oppose an Atlanta research center's proposal to do
AIDS-related research on sooty mangabey monkeys.
The letter urges the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to reject a request by the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, according to a copy filed with the government.
Scientists at the research center have nurtured a group of the primates, which are natural carriers of a form of the AIDS virus but don't get sick from it, since the late 1960s. But federal officials listed them as endangered in 1988, leaving the center with the world's largest collection of captive sooties but little hope of scientific benefit.
Yerkes officials are proposing helping conserve sooties in the African wild in exchange for permission to do AIDS-related research on captive sooties.
Federal officials have said such a trade-off has never before been permitted. In a letter dated June 19, Goodall and others say they hope it never is.
The letter, provided to the Associated Press by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said approving such a deal "could open the floodgates to future permit applications premised on allowing entities to kill or otherwise harm endangered species in exchange for making financial contributions to conservation programs."
Goodall could not be reached for comment, but her involvement was confirmed by a spokeswoman with the Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation.
PETA, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society and eight other advocacy groups also submitted comments opposing the research center's application.
British-born Goodall began studying chimpanzees in Tanzania in 1960. Her studies have helped revolutionize humanity's understanding of chimps.
Last year, Yerkes, which is part of Emory University, began providing up to $30,000 a year to a primatologist's conservation and research of sooties in the Tai National Park Reserve in Ivory Coast, West Africa.
In July, the center wrote Fish & Wildlife seeking the right to conduct research on the Yerkes sooties "given our contribution to sooty mangabey conservation."
Tim Van Norman, the Fish & Wildlife official to whom the letter was addressed, could not be reached for comment.
A Yerkes spokeswoman declined to comment. She said Fish & Wildlife held a public comment period on the research center's application that ran from May 18 until June 19.
In addition, these primates are listed as endangered! So, with these points stated, it seems just a strange situation in which resources and lives are wasted.
Article:
AIDS research on monkey group questioned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060622/
ap_on_sc/research_monkeys_1
By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 22, 2:00 PM ET
ATLANTA - Primate expert Jane Goodall and 18 other researchers sent a letter to federal officials urging them to oppose an Atlanta research center's proposal to do
AIDS-related research on sooty mangabey monkeys.
The letter urges the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to reject a request by the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, according to a copy filed with the government.
Scientists at the research center have nurtured a group of the primates, which are natural carriers of a form of the AIDS virus but don't get sick from it, since the late 1960s. But federal officials listed them as endangered in 1988, leaving the center with the world's largest collection of captive sooties but little hope of scientific benefit.
Yerkes officials are proposing helping conserve sooties in the African wild in exchange for permission to do AIDS-related research on captive sooties.
Federal officials have said such a trade-off has never before been permitted. In a letter dated June 19, Goodall and others say they hope it never is.
The letter, provided to the Associated Press by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said approving such a deal "could open the floodgates to future permit applications premised on allowing entities to kill or otherwise harm endangered species in exchange for making financial contributions to conservation programs."
Goodall could not be reached for comment, but her involvement was confirmed by a spokeswoman with the Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation.
PETA, the New England Anti-Vivisection Society and eight other advocacy groups also submitted comments opposing the research center's application.
British-born Goodall began studying chimpanzees in Tanzania in 1960. Her studies have helped revolutionize humanity's understanding of chimps.
Last year, Yerkes, which is part of Emory University, began providing up to $30,000 a year to a primatologist's conservation and research of sooties in the Tai National Park Reserve in Ivory Coast, West Africa.
In July, the center wrote Fish & Wildlife seeking the right to conduct research on the Yerkes sooties "given our contribution to sooty mangabey conservation."
Tim Van Norman, the Fish & Wildlife official to whom the letter was addressed, could not be reached for comment.
A Yerkes spokeswoman declined to comment. She said Fish & Wildlife held a public comment period on the research center's application that ran from May 18 until June 19.
Group Asks Merriam-Webster to Rewrite Definition of “Circus” to Convey Truth: Captive Animals Forced to Perform Tricks Under Threat of Punishment
A very interesting and brilliant idea that makes great sense. After all, words are extremely powerful and the truth is beyond important.
In essence, here is what PETA is asking the dictionary to use:
PETA’s proposal defines a circus as a “spectacle that relies on captive animals” who are “forced to perform tricks under the constant threat of punishment.” It also wants the definition to say that “modern circuses include only willing human performers.”
Article:
PETA goes wild - Wants dictionary to jump through hoops
http://news.bostonherald.com/local
Regional/view.bg?articleid=145098
By Dave Wedge
Boston Herald Chief Enterprise Reporter
Friday, June 23, 2006 - Updated: 08:27 AM EST
PETA activists are cracking the whip on Springfield-based Merriam-Webster, demanding that the definition of “circus” be rewritten to label the big top as cruel to “captive” animal performers.
The dictionary currently defines a circus as “an arena often covered by a tent and used for variety shows, usually including feats of physical skill, wild animal acts, and performances by clowns.”
But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - known for caging naked women to protest the wearing of fur and protesting the living conditions of pet store iguanas - wants a new entry.
PETA’s proposal defines a circus as a “spectacle that relies on captive animals” who are “forced to perform tricks under the constant threat of punishment.” It also wants the definition to say that “modern circuses include only willing human performers.”
The dictionary publishing company couldn’t be reached last night, but, in a letter to Merriam-Webster provided to the Herald, PETA points out that “whips, chains, muzzles, and bullhooks are the standard tools used to train and constantly control animals used in circuses.”
“The sight of these weapons makes the animals perform out of sheer terror,” the letter states.
The letter also refers to undercover investigations that have revealed squalid conditions for circus animals as well as animals being mercilessly beaten by trainers. PETA says attendance is down at traditional shows like Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus while crowds at human-based performances like Cirque Du Soleil are at an all-time high. A Ringling spokesman did not return a call.
“People who use your dictionary deserve an accurate description of this cruel business, and we hope that you’ll consider our suggestion,” the PETA letter states.
Circuses that feature trained animals are banned in six countries and more than 300 U.S. cities and towns, including Revere. A pending State House bill to prohibit exotic animals in Massachusetts circuses is expected to go to a Senate vote this year.
“As more and more people become aware of the cruelty and violence that goes on behind the scenes at circuses, we felt the definition needed to be updated,” said PETA spokesman Matthew Rice.
Merriam-Webster routinely updates definitions, frequently considering public input.
In essence, here is what PETA is asking the dictionary to use:
PETA’s proposal defines a circus as a “spectacle that relies on captive animals” who are “forced to perform tricks under the constant threat of punishment.” It also wants the definition to say that “modern circuses include only willing human performers.”
Article:
PETA goes wild - Wants dictionary to jump through hoops
http://news.bostonherald.com/local
Regional/view.bg?articleid=145098
By Dave Wedge
Boston Herald Chief Enterprise Reporter
Friday, June 23, 2006 - Updated: 08:27 AM EST
PETA activists are cracking the whip on Springfield-based Merriam-Webster, demanding that the definition of “circus” be rewritten to label the big top as cruel to “captive” animal performers.
The dictionary currently defines a circus as “an arena often covered by a tent and used for variety shows, usually including feats of physical skill, wild animal acts, and performances by clowns.”
But People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - known for caging naked women to protest the wearing of fur and protesting the living conditions of pet store iguanas - wants a new entry.
PETA’s proposal defines a circus as a “spectacle that relies on captive animals” who are “forced to perform tricks under the constant threat of punishment.” It also wants the definition to say that “modern circuses include only willing human performers.”
The dictionary publishing company couldn’t be reached last night, but, in a letter to Merriam-Webster provided to the Herald, PETA points out that “whips, chains, muzzles, and bullhooks are the standard tools used to train and constantly control animals used in circuses.”
“The sight of these weapons makes the animals perform out of sheer terror,” the letter states.
The letter also refers to undercover investigations that have revealed squalid conditions for circus animals as well as animals being mercilessly beaten by trainers. PETA says attendance is down at traditional shows like Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus while crowds at human-based performances like Cirque Du Soleil are at an all-time high. A Ringling spokesman did not return a call.
“People who use your dictionary deserve an accurate description of this cruel business, and we hope that you’ll consider our suggestion,” the PETA letter states.
Circuses that feature trained animals are banned in six countries and more than 300 U.S. cities and towns, including Revere. A pending State House bill to prohibit exotic animals in Massachusetts circuses is expected to go to a Senate vote this year.
“As more and more people become aware of the cruelty and violence that goes on behind the scenes at circuses, we felt the definition needed to be updated,” said PETA spokesman Matthew Rice.
Merriam-Webster routinely updates definitions, frequently considering public input.
Groups Seek to Ban Foie Gras Production in New York, One of the Leading U.S. Producing States: What is Foie Gras and Why is it Bad?
A great move.
What is foie gras and why is it bad?
Foie gras (translated literally from French as "fatty liver" and pronounced 'fwah grah') is produced by cruel and inhumane farming practices. At just a few months old, ducks are confined inside dark sheds and force-fed enormous amounts of food several times a day. A farm worker grabs each duck and, one by one, thrusts a metal pipe down their throats so that a mixture of corn can be forced directly into their gullets. In just a matter of weeks, the ducks become grossly overweight and their livers expand up to 10 times their normal size.
As a result, ducks raised for foie gras have difficulty standing, walking, and even breathing. Many of them die before the end of the force-feeding cycle, and the mortality rate for ducks raised on foie gras farms is among the highest in the farming industry. Necropsies performed on foie gras ducks have shown extreme obesity, impaction of undigested food in the esophagus, lacerations in the throat, and a proliferation of bacterial and fungal growth in their upper digestive tracts.
More information on foie gras can be found at:
http://www.nofoiegras.org/
Article:
Humane Society seeks foie gras production ban
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060621/od_
uk_nm/oukoe_uk_food_foiegras_1
Wed Jun 21, 7:59 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Animal rights groups on Wednesday sought to ban foie gras production in New York, one of the leading U.S. producing states, arguing that overfeeding birds to fatten their livers makes the animals sick.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Humane Society of the United States filed a formal action with the New York U.S. State
Department of Agriculture and Markets to stop the practice under a state law that makes it illegal to produce food from diseased animals.
"It's illegal for farmers to intentionally make their animals sick and then sell them at market as if nothing were wrong," said Carter Dillard of the Humane Society.
The Humane Society, with other animal rights groups, filed 900 pages of documents arguing that ducks and geese are force-fed for weeks until their livers become fattened.
Originally a French delicacy, foie gras means literally "fat liver."
According to the Humane Society, California and more than a dozen countries have already banned the production of foie gras, and Chicago recently banned its sale because of animal welfare concerns.
What is foie gras and why is it bad?
Foie gras (translated literally from French as "fatty liver" and pronounced 'fwah grah') is produced by cruel and inhumane farming practices. At just a few months old, ducks are confined inside dark sheds and force-fed enormous amounts of food several times a day. A farm worker grabs each duck and, one by one, thrusts a metal pipe down their throats so that a mixture of corn can be forced directly into their gullets. In just a matter of weeks, the ducks become grossly overweight and their livers expand up to 10 times their normal size.
As a result, ducks raised for foie gras have difficulty standing, walking, and even breathing. Many of them die before the end of the force-feeding cycle, and the mortality rate for ducks raised on foie gras farms is among the highest in the farming industry. Necropsies performed on foie gras ducks have shown extreme obesity, impaction of undigested food in the esophagus, lacerations in the throat, and a proliferation of bacterial and fungal growth in their upper digestive tracts.
More information on foie gras can be found at:
http://www.nofoiegras.org/
Article:
Humane Society seeks foie gras production ban
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060621/od_
uk_nm/oukoe_uk_food_foiegras_1
Wed Jun 21, 7:59 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Animal rights groups on Wednesday sought to ban foie gras production in New York, one of the leading U.S. producing states, arguing that overfeeding birds to fatten their livers makes the animals sick.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Humane Society of the United States filed a formal action with the New York U.S. State
Department of Agriculture and Markets to stop the practice under a state law that makes it illegal to produce food from diseased animals.
"It's illegal for farmers to intentionally make their animals sick and then sell them at market as if nothing were wrong," said Carter Dillard of the Humane Society.
The Humane Society, with other animal rights groups, filed 900 pages of documents arguing that ducks and geese are force-fed for weeks until their livers become fattened.
Originally a French delicacy, foie gras means literally "fat liver."
According to the Humane Society, California and more than a dozen countries have already banned the production of foie gras, and Chicago recently banned its sale because of animal welfare concerns.
The Illegal Trade of Animal Parts Goes On: Seven Arrested In Delhi, India for Selling Body Parts of Animals
Why print this story? Well, to remind all that this practice is alive and well.
Here’s more on the issue of illegal wildlife trade:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/02/selfish-
wealthy-drive-illegal-trade-in_02.html
Article:
Seven arrested for selling body parts of animals
http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?action=
fullnews&id=11749
New Delhi, June 20: Five women and two men were arrested today for allegedly selling body parts of animals in the historic Jama Masjid area of Central Delhi and recovered 93 deer must and 50 porcupine wings, police said.
The major seizure also includes 31 lion teeths, 15 owl paws, four tortoise shells, one Barasimha horn and a dead owl, and arrested the seven while trying to allegedly sell them at Jama Masjid area, they said.
The five women arrested were from Kalyanpuri of North East Delhi and were identified as Bhundi (60), Naina (60), Kevanti (60), Rampyari (40) and Saranga (40).
The arrested men were Mohammed Saleem, a resident of Daryaganj in Central Delhi and Ganesh Dutt of New Usmanpuri, they added.
Cases were registered against the accused under relevant sections of the Wild Life Act.
Here’s more on the issue of illegal wildlife trade:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/02/selfish-
wealthy-drive-illegal-trade-in_02.html
Article:
Seven arrested for selling body parts of animals
http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?action=
fullnews&id=11749
New Delhi, June 20: Five women and two men were arrested today for allegedly selling body parts of animals in the historic Jama Masjid area of Central Delhi and recovered 93 deer must and 50 porcupine wings, police said.
The major seizure also includes 31 lion teeths, 15 owl paws, four tortoise shells, one Barasimha horn and a dead owl, and arrested the seven while trying to allegedly sell them at Jama Masjid area, they said.
The five women arrested were from Kalyanpuri of North East Delhi and were identified as Bhundi (60), Naina (60), Kevanti (60), Rampyari (40) and Saranga (40).
The arrested men were Mohammed Saleem, a resident of Daryaganj in Central Delhi and Ganesh Dutt of New Usmanpuri, they added.
Cases were registered against the accused under relevant sections of the Wild Life Act.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Test Tube or Lab-Grown Meat Nears Dinner Table: Benefits Are Obvious
The essence of why many believe in this is this:
“The advantage, he says, is you avoid the inefficiencies and bottlenecks of conventional meat production. No more feed grain production and processing, breeders, hatcheries, grow-out, slaughter or processing facilities.”
"To produce the meat we eat now, 75 (percent) to 95 percent of what we feed an animal is lost because of metabolism and inedible structures like skeleton or neurological tissue," says Matheny. "With cultured meat, there's no body to support; you're only building the meat that eventually gets eaten."
Article:
Test Tube Meat Nears Dinner Table
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0621-03.htm
by Lakshmi Sandhana
What if the next burger you ate was created in a warm, nutrient-enriched soup swirling within a bioreactor?
Edible, lab-grown ground chuck that smells and tastes just like the real thing might take a place next to Quorn at supermarkets in just a few years, thanks to some determined meat researchers. Scientists routinely grow small quantities of muscle cells in petri dishes for experiments, but now for the first time a concentrated effort is under way to mass-produce meat in this manner.
Henk Haagsman, a professor of meat sciences at Utrecht University, and his Dutch colleagues are working on growing artificial pork meat out of pig stem cells. They hope to grow a form of minced meat suitable for burgers, sausages and pizza toppings within the next few years.
Currently involved in identifying the type of stem cells that will multiply the most to create larger quantities of meat within a bioreactor, the team hopes to have concrete results by 2009. The 2 million euro ($2.5 million) Dutch-government-funded project began in April 2005. The work is one arm of a worldwide research effort focused on growing meat from cell cultures on an industrial scale.
"All of the technology exists today to make ground meat products in vitro," says Paul Kosnik, vice president of engineering at Tissue Genesis in Hawaii. Kosnik is growing scaffold-free, self-assembled muscle. "We believe the goal of a processed meat product is attainable in the next five years if funding is available and the R&D is pursued aggressively."
A single cell could theoretically produce enough meat to feed the world's population for a year. But the challenge lies in figuring out how to grow it on a large scale. Jason Matheny, a University of Maryland doctoral student and a director of New Harvest, a nonprofit organization that funds research on in vitro meat, believes the easiest way to create edible tissue is to grow "meat sheets," which are layers of animal muscle and fat cells stretched out over large flat sheets made of either edible or removable material. The meat can then be ground up or stacked or rolled to get a thicker cut.
"You'd need a bunch of industrial-size bioreactors," says Matheny. "One to produce the growth media, one to produce cells, and one that produces the meat sheets. The whole operation could be under one roof."
The advantage, he says, is you avoid the inefficiencies and bottlenecks of conventional meat production. No more feed grain production and processing, breeders, hatcheries, grow-out, slaughter or processing facilities.
"To produce the meat we eat now, 75 (percent) to 95 percent of what we feed an animal is lost because of metabolism and inedible structures like skeleton or neurological tissue," says Matheny. "With cultured meat, there's no body to support; you're only building the meat that eventually gets eaten."
The sheets would be less than 1 mm thick and take a few weeks to grow. But the real issue is the expense. If cultivated with nutrient solutions that are currently used for biomedical applications, the cost of producing one pound of in vitro meat runs anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000.
Matheny believes in vitro meat can compete with conventional meat by using nutrients from plant or fungal sources, which could bring the cost down to about $1 per pound.
If successful, artificially grown meat could be tailored to be far healthier than any type of farm-grown meat. It's possible to stuff if full of heart-friendly omega-3 fatty acids, adjust the protein or texture to suit individual taste preferences and screen it for food-borne diseases.
But will it really catch on? The Food and Drug Administration has already barred food products involving cloned animals from the market until their safety has been tested. There's also the yuck factor.
"Cultured meat isn't natural, but neither is yogurt," says Matheny. "And neither, for that matter, is most of the meat we eat. Cramming 10,000 chickens in a metal shed and dosing them full of antibiotics isn't natural. I view cultured meat like hydroponic vegetables. The end product is the same, but the process used to make it is different. Consumers accept hydroponic vegetables. Would they accept hydroponic meat?"
Taste is another unknown variable. Real meat is more than just cells; it has blood vessels, connective tissue, fat, etc. To get a similar arrangement of cells, lab-grown meat will have to be exercised and stretched the way a real live animal's flesh would.
Kosnik is working on a way to create muscle grown without scaffolds by culturing the right combination of cells in a 3-D environment with mechanical anchors so that the cells develop into long fibers similar to real muscle.
The technology to grow a juicy steak, however, is still a decade or so away. No one has yet figured out how to grow blood vessels within tissue.
"In the meantime, we can use existing technologies to satisfy the demand for ground meat, which is about half of the meat we eat (and a $127 billion global market)," says Matheny.
“The advantage, he says, is you avoid the inefficiencies and bottlenecks of conventional meat production. No more feed grain production and processing, breeders, hatcheries, grow-out, slaughter or processing facilities.”
"To produce the meat we eat now, 75 (percent) to 95 percent of what we feed an animal is lost because of metabolism and inedible structures like skeleton or neurological tissue," says Matheny. "With cultured meat, there's no body to support; you're only building the meat that eventually gets eaten."
Article:
Test Tube Meat Nears Dinner Table
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0621-03.htm
by Lakshmi Sandhana
What if the next burger you ate was created in a warm, nutrient-enriched soup swirling within a bioreactor?
Edible, lab-grown ground chuck that smells and tastes just like the real thing might take a place next to Quorn at supermarkets in just a few years, thanks to some determined meat researchers. Scientists routinely grow small quantities of muscle cells in petri dishes for experiments, but now for the first time a concentrated effort is under way to mass-produce meat in this manner.
Henk Haagsman, a professor of meat sciences at Utrecht University, and his Dutch colleagues are working on growing artificial pork meat out of pig stem cells. They hope to grow a form of minced meat suitable for burgers, sausages and pizza toppings within the next few years.
Currently involved in identifying the type of stem cells that will multiply the most to create larger quantities of meat within a bioreactor, the team hopes to have concrete results by 2009. The 2 million euro ($2.5 million) Dutch-government-funded project began in April 2005. The work is one arm of a worldwide research effort focused on growing meat from cell cultures on an industrial scale.
"All of the technology exists today to make ground meat products in vitro," says Paul Kosnik, vice president of engineering at Tissue Genesis in Hawaii. Kosnik is growing scaffold-free, self-assembled muscle. "We believe the goal of a processed meat product is attainable in the next five years if funding is available and the R&D is pursued aggressively."
A single cell could theoretically produce enough meat to feed the world's population for a year. But the challenge lies in figuring out how to grow it on a large scale. Jason Matheny, a University of Maryland doctoral student and a director of New Harvest, a nonprofit organization that funds research on in vitro meat, believes the easiest way to create edible tissue is to grow "meat sheets," which are layers of animal muscle and fat cells stretched out over large flat sheets made of either edible or removable material. The meat can then be ground up or stacked or rolled to get a thicker cut.
"You'd need a bunch of industrial-size bioreactors," says Matheny. "One to produce the growth media, one to produce cells, and one that produces the meat sheets. The whole operation could be under one roof."
The advantage, he says, is you avoid the inefficiencies and bottlenecks of conventional meat production. No more feed grain production and processing, breeders, hatcheries, grow-out, slaughter or processing facilities.
"To produce the meat we eat now, 75 (percent) to 95 percent of what we feed an animal is lost because of metabolism and inedible structures like skeleton or neurological tissue," says Matheny. "With cultured meat, there's no body to support; you're only building the meat that eventually gets eaten."
The sheets would be less than 1 mm thick and take a few weeks to grow. But the real issue is the expense. If cultivated with nutrient solutions that are currently used for biomedical applications, the cost of producing one pound of in vitro meat runs anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000.
Matheny believes in vitro meat can compete with conventional meat by using nutrients from plant or fungal sources, which could bring the cost down to about $1 per pound.
If successful, artificially grown meat could be tailored to be far healthier than any type of farm-grown meat. It's possible to stuff if full of heart-friendly omega-3 fatty acids, adjust the protein or texture to suit individual taste preferences and screen it for food-borne diseases.
But will it really catch on? The Food and Drug Administration has already barred food products involving cloned animals from the market until their safety has been tested. There's also the yuck factor.
"Cultured meat isn't natural, but neither is yogurt," says Matheny. "And neither, for that matter, is most of the meat we eat. Cramming 10,000 chickens in a metal shed and dosing them full of antibiotics isn't natural. I view cultured meat like hydroponic vegetables. The end product is the same, but the process used to make it is different. Consumers accept hydroponic vegetables. Would they accept hydroponic meat?"
Taste is another unknown variable. Real meat is more than just cells; it has blood vessels, connective tissue, fat, etc. To get a similar arrangement of cells, lab-grown meat will have to be exercised and stretched the way a real live animal's flesh would.
Kosnik is working on a way to create muscle grown without scaffolds by culturing the right combination of cells in a 3-D environment with mechanical anchors so that the cells develop into long fibers similar to real muscle.
The technology to grow a juicy steak, however, is still a decade or so away. No one has yet figured out how to grow blood vessels within tissue.
"In the meantime, we can use existing technologies to satisfy the demand for ground meat, which is about half of the meat we eat (and a $127 billion global market)," says Matheny.
South Africa's Proposals to Clamp Down On "Canned Hunting", Or the Killing of Captive Animals Useless Unless Laws Are Clear and Properly Enforced
As I suspected – the proposals to more closely regulate canned, or captive “hunting” really were just pr. No guidelines have been set and really, because it’s such a huge money making entity, not much will be done.
What is canned hunting?
Essentially, it’s the largest form of rich guy cowardice on Earth. Basically, rich people pay lots to go to enclosed ranches that let you kill trapped animals. Basically, back-slappin, easy hunting.
Here’s a definition from
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/stop_canned_hunts/
“Canned hunting operations, also referred to as "shooting preserves" or "game ranches," are private trophy hunting facilities that offer their customers the opportunity to kill exotic and native animals that are trapped within enclosures.”
Who Are the Victims?
The animals killed in canned hunts may come from private breeders, animal dealers, or even zoos. These animals are frequently hand-raised and bottle fed, so they have lost their natural fear of people. In many facilities, the animals expect to be fed at regular times by familiar people—and the shooters will be there waiting for them.
More on canned hunting can be found here:
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/stop_canned_hunts/
Article:
South African hunting laws need more clarity: animal rights group
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2627&ncid=
2627&e=30&u=/afp/20060619/sc_afp/safricaenvironmentlaw_
060619133246
Mon Jun 19, 10:30 AM ET
JOHANNESBURG (AFP) - South Africa's proposals to clamp down on "canned hunting", or the killing of captive animals, will be useless unless the laws are clear and properly enforced, an animal welfare group has said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"All the bills and laws in the world will not stop the scourge of captive hunting and the loopholes will be exploited," said Neil Greenwood, spokesman for the southern Africa chapter of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Greenwood was speaking as the deadline closed for public comment on government proposals to regulate captive hunting, which brings in some 25 billion rand (four billion dollars, 3.2 billion euros) a year in South Africa, drawing game hunters from Europe and the United States.
He said a major drawback was that the distance from which an animal could be killed or the dimensions of the hunting area were not spelt out.
"No minimum dimensions have been given, which then creates a situation that becomes subjective to interpretation about the specific measurement of the area in which an animal can be hunted and from what distance," he told AFP.
Greenwood also said the proposed laws needed to be implemented effectively.
"It's all very well to make suggestions but we need to know how the government plans to enforce all of this," he said.
The proposals were unveiled by Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk in May to bring in "integrity and best practices."
Citing examples where rhinos had been killed with crossbows or bows and arrows, he had said, adding that hunting should be conducted along "fair chase" principles pitting the hunter's wits against those of the animal.
South Africa has become one of the hunting world's greatest draws, attracting some 9,500 foreign hunters every year, the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa estimated last year.
Some 9,000 privately owned ranches employ about 70,000 people to cater to foreign hunters who come to hunt animals including Africa's "Big Five" -- lions, leopards, buffalo, elephant and rhino.
What is canned hunting?
Essentially, it’s the largest form of rich guy cowardice on Earth. Basically, rich people pay lots to go to enclosed ranches that let you kill trapped animals. Basically, back-slappin, easy hunting.
Here’s a definition from
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/stop_canned_hunts/
“Canned hunting operations, also referred to as "shooting preserves" or "game ranches," are private trophy hunting facilities that offer their customers the opportunity to kill exotic and native animals that are trapped within enclosures.”
Who Are the Victims?
The animals killed in canned hunts may come from private breeders, animal dealers, or even zoos. These animals are frequently hand-raised and bottle fed, so they have lost their natural fear of people. In many facilities, the animals expect to be fed at regular times by familiar people—and the shooters will be there waiting for them.
More on canned hunting can be found here:
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/stop_canned_hunts/
Article:
South African hunting laws need more clarity: animal rights group
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2627&ncid=
2627&e=30&u=/afp/20060619/sc_afp/safricaenvironmentlaw_
060619133246
Mon Jun 19, 10:30 AM ET
JOHANNESBURG (AFP) - South Africa's proposals to clamp down on "canned hunting", or the killing of captive animals, will be useless unless the laws are clear and properly enforced, an animal welfare group has said.
ADVERTISEMENT
"All the bills and laws in the world will not stop the scourge of captive hunting and the loopholes will be exploited," said Neil Greenwood, spokesman for the southern Africa chapter of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Greenwood was speaking as the deadline closed for public comment on government proposals to regulate captive hunting, which brings in some 25 billion rand (four billion dollars, 3.2 billion euros) a year in South Africa, drawing game hunters from Europe and the United States.
He said a major drawback was that the distance from which an animal could be killed or the dimensions of the hunting area were not spelt out.
"No minimum dimensions have been given, which then creates a situation that becomes subjective to interpretation about the specific measurement of the area in which an animal can be hunted and from what distance," he told AFP.
Greenwood also said the proposed laws needed to be implemented effectively.
"It's all very well to make suggestions but we need to know how the government plans to enforce all of this," he said.
The proposals were unveiled by Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk in May to bring in "integrity and best practices."
Citing examples where rhinos had been killed with crossbows or bows and arrows, he had said, adding that hunting should be conducted along "fair chase" principles pitting the hunter's wits against those of the animal.
South Africa has become one of the hunting world's greatest draws, attracting some 9,500 foreign hunters every year, the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa estimated last year.
Some 9,000 privately owned ranches employ about 70,000 people to cater to foreign hunters who come to hunt animals including Africa's "Big Five" -- lions, leopards, buffalo, elephant and rhino.
Britain Heads Towards Ban of Bearskin Hats Worn By Red-Coated Soldiers Who Guard the Country's Royal Palaces
I’m surprised this has made it this far. This truly has turned into a movement. When you have complacent lawmakers involved you know it has a chance of making it.
Article:
Brit guards' bearskin hats may be banned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/
ap_on_re_eu/britain_royal_bearskin_1
By KATIE FRETLAND, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 20, 7:34 PM ET
LONDON - A British lawmaker is gathering support for his call to ban the towering bearskin hats worn for almost 200 years by the red-coated soldiers who guard the country's royal palaces.
The motion, introduced by Labour party lawmaker Chris Mullin in March, declares the hats made from the fur of Canadian black bears "have no military significance and involve unnecessary cruelty."
Conservative lawmaker Ann Widdecombe has now urged her party to support the motion aimed at replacing the bearskins with artificial substitutes.
"Black bears, who are intelligent and curious animals, are slaughtered in Canada so that their skins may be used for ceremonial hats," Widdecombe wrote in a letter to her party colleagues on Thursday.
Widdecombe's letter was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.
So far, 180 of 646 lawmakers in the House of Commons have signed the motion.
On Sunday, about 100 animal rights activists staged a naked demonstration in London to protest against the hats.
The royal guards who wear the foot-tall black bearskin hats, bright red tunics and white gloves are one of the most recognizable symbols of Britian. Tourists flock to Buckingham Palace, the queen's London home, to watch the traditional Changing of the Guard ceremony.
An army spokesman said officials have been searching for an alternative and have tested a false fur that was hot and tended to matte in rainy weather, durable and rich bearskin is preferred.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with department policy, said the army also strives to repair instead of replace its 2,500 hats.
"Not a single bear is killed (solely) to make a bearskin hat," the army spokesman said. "Both governments in the United States and Canada have policies to keep the bear population under control."
Canadian black bears are not an endangered species.
The Defense Ministry buys 50 to 100 bearskin pelts a year to outfit its five regiments wearing them. One complete bearskin hat costs $1,197 and can last up to 40 years.
Article:
Brit guards' bearskin hats may be banned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/
ap_on_re_eu/britain_royal_bearskin_1
By KATIE FRETLAND, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 20, 7:34 PM ET
LONDON - A British lawmaker is gathering support for his call to ban the towering bearskin hats worn for almost 200 years by the red-coated soldiers who guard the country's royal palaces.
The motion, introduced by Labour party lawmaker Chris Mullin in March, declares the hats made from the fur of Canadian black bears "have no military significance and involve unnecessary cruelty."
Conservative lawmaker Ann Widdecombe has now urged her party to support the motion aimed at replacing the bearskins with artificial substitutes.
"Black bears, who are intelligent and curious animals, are slaughtered in Canada so that their skins may be used for ceremonial hats," Widdecombe wrote in a letter to her party colleagues on Thursday.
Widdecombe's letter was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.
So far, 180 of 646 lawmakers in the House of Commons have signed the motion.
On Sunday, about 100 animal rights activists staged a naked demonstration in London to protest against the hats.
The royal guards who wear the foot-tall black bearskin hats, bright red tunics and white gloves are one of the most recognizable symbols of Britian. Tourists flock to Buckingham Palace, the queen's London home, to watch the traditional Changing of the Guard ceremony.
An army spokesman said officials have been searching for an alternative and have tested a false fur that was hot and tended to matte in rainy weather, durable and rich bearskin is preferred.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with department policy, said the army also strives to repair instead of replace its 2,500 hats.
"Not a single bear is killed (solely) to make a bearskin hat," the army spokesman said. "Both governments in the United States and Canada have policies to keep the bear population under control."
Canadian black bears are not an endangered species.
The Defense Ministry buys 50 to 100 bearskin pelts a year to outfit its five regiments wearing them. One complete bearskin hat costs $1,197 and can last up to 40 years.
DVD ''Hood Fights, Vol. 2, The Art Of The Pit'', Which Glorifies Pit Bull Fighting Pulled From Shelves of Major Stores
Sadly, Amazon.com Inc., Circuit City Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. Inc. and Netflix all had it available for sale. It was only after the HSUS got involved did they decide to pull it.
Article:
Dog-fight DVD provokes outcry
Circuit City, Best Buy, Amazon pull 'Hood Fights 2'
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/
montereyherald/news/state/14867020.htm
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - A DVD featuring pit bull fights has unleashed protests against the distributor as well as online merchants peddling the video, which may break federal laws against animal cruelty.
Amazon.com Inc., Circuit City Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. Inc. said they would pull the video, ''Hood Fights, Vol. 2, The Art of The Pit'' from their Web sites.
As of late Tuesday, the DVD was still being sold on online auctioneer eBay Inc.
"Hood Fights 2" contains scenes of men brawling, but the pit bull sequences have provoked the loudest outcry.
The Humane Society of United States asked U.S. Attorney Roger Roper III in Dallas to investigate whether "Hood Fights 2" violates a federal law against interstate or foreign commerce profiting from the depiction of animal cruelty. The DVD was released in April by a Texas-based Web site, streetheatdvd.com
"Hood Fights 2" ''shows a series of staged matches in which trained fighting dogs suffer bloody, debilitating injuries for the apparent amusement of spectators,'' the Humane Society's Ann Chynoweth wrote in a June 13 letter to Roper.
Kathy Colvin, a spokeswoman for Roper, declined to say whether the U.S. attorney had opened an investigation.
Internet records list streetheatdvd.com's owner as 50/50 Entertainment and Glenn Hudson. Efforts to reach Hudson for comment were unsuccessful.
The Humane Society sent letters of protest to Amazon.com, Best Buy, Circuit City and Netflix Inc., which runs the Web's largest rental service.
Los Gatos-based Netflix removed "Hood Fights" from its library during the past week after customer complaints prompted a review of the objectionable content, said company spokesman Steve Swasey.
''We treated it like we would pornography,'' Swasey said. Netflix doesn't rent pornography to its nearly 5 million subscribers.
Until the AP's inquiry, Amazon.com's Web site had indicated it planned to reorder more copies of "Hood Fight 2."
Amazon.com spokeswoman Patty Smith said listings for "Hood Fights 2" were supplied by three distributors.
Circuit City spokesman Jim Babb said the Richmond, Va.-based retailer wasn't aware "Hood Fights 2" contained pit bull fights until the inquiry.
''When you have more than 300,000 items listed (on the Web site), it's hard to monitor everything,'' said Babb, who emphasized Hood Fights was never sold in Circuit City's brick-and-mortar stores.
Minneapolis-based Best Buy decided late Tuesday that it was inappropriate to continue selling "Hood Fights 2."
''We share in the concerns about issues related to violence against animals,'' said company spokesman Jay Musolf.
Ebay spokesman Hani Durzy said the auction site planned to review Hood Fights 2 and will pull the listing if the company believes the video breaks any laws.
Article:
Dog-fight DVD provokes outcry
Circuit City, Best Buy, Amazon pull 'Hood Fights 2'
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/
montereyherald/news/state/14867020.htm
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - A DVD featuring pit bull fights has unleashed protests against the distributor as well as online merchants peddling the video, which may break federal laws against animal cruelty.
Amazon.com Inc., Circuit City Stores Inc. and Best Buy Co. Inc. said they would pull the video, ''Hood Fights, Vol. 2, The Art of The Pit'' from their Web sites.
As of late Tuesday, the DVD was still being sold on online auctioneer eBay Inc.
"Hood Fights 2" contains scenes of men brawling, but the pit bull sequences have provoked the loudest outcry.
The Humane Society of United States asked U.S. Attorney Roger Roper III in Dallas to investigate whether "Hood Fights 2" violates a federal law against interstate or foreign commerce profiting from the depiction of animal cruelty. The DVD was released in April by a Texas-based Web site, streetheatdvd.com
"Hood Fights 2" ''shows a series of staged matches in which trained fighting dogs suffer bloody, debilitating injuries for the apparent amusement of spectators,'' the Humane Society's Ann Chynoweth wrote in a June 13 letter to Roper.
Kathy Colvin, a spokeswoman for Roper, declined to say whether the U.S. attorney had opened an investigation.
Internet records list streetheatdvd.com's owner as 50/50 Entertainment and Glenn Hudson. Efforts to reach Hudson for comment were unsuccessful.
The Humane Society sent letters of protest to Amazon.com, Best Buy, Circuit City and Netflix Inc., which runs the Web's largest rental service.
Los Gatos-based Netflix removed "Hood Fights" from its library during the past week after customer complaints prompted a review of the objectionable content, said company spokesman Steve Swasey.
''We treated it like we would pornography,'' Swasey said. Netflix doesn't rent pornography to its nearly 5 million subscribers.
Until the AP's inquiry, Amazon.com's Web site had indicated it planned to reorder more copies of "Hood Fight 2."
Amazon.com spokeswoman Patty Smith said listings for "Hood Fights 2" were supplied by three distributors.
Circuit City spokesman Jim Babb said the Richmond, Va.-based retailer wasn't aware "Hood Fights 2" contained pit bull fights until the inquiry.
''When you have more than 300,000 items listed (on the Web site), it's hard to monitor everything,'' said Babb, who emphasized Hood Fights was never sold in Circuit City's brick-and-mortar stores.
Minneapolis-based Best Buy decided late Tuesday that it was inappropriate to continue selling "Hood Fights 2."
''We share in the concerns about issues related to violence against animals,'' said company spokesman Jay Musolf.
Ebay spokesman Hani Durzy said the auction site planned to review Hood Fights 2 and will pull the listing if the company believes the video breaks any laws.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Children Who Live or Attend School Near Large-Scale Livestock Farms - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations - May Be At A Higher Risk for Asthma
Not surprising finding as CAFOs produce huge amounts of pollution as any confined operation would.
Interesting study. Please read on.
Article:
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Near Schools May Pose Asthma Risk
http://www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/521406/
Newswise — Children who attend school near large-scale livestock farms known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) may be at a higher risk for asthma, according to a new study by University of Iowa researchers.
The study, led by Joel Kline, M.D., professor of internal medicine in the UI Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, appears in the June issue of Chest, the peer-reviewed journal of the American College of Chest Physicians.
"Previous research has shown increased rates of asthma among children living in rural areas of Iowa and the United States," said Kline, who also is deputy director of the Environmental Health Sciences Research Center (EHSRC) in the UI College of Public Health, which helped fund the study. "Given that CAFOs release inflammatory substances that can affect the health of workers at these facilities and the air quality of nearby communities, we were interested in whether there was a connection between CAFOs and increased rates of asthma among kids in rural areas."
Researchers surveyed the parents of kindergarten through fifth-grade students attending two Iowa elementary schools to compare the prevalence of asthma among students. The "study" school was located a half-mile from a CAFO in northeast Iowa; the "control" school was in east-central Iowa, more than 10 miles away from any CAFO (generally classified as a livestock facility that houses more than 3,500 animals). Sixty-one participants responded from the study school, and 248 participants responded from the control school.
Study results indicated a significant difference in the prevalence of physician-diagnosed asthma between the two schools: 12 children (19.7 percent) from the study school located near a CAFO and 18 children (7.3 percent) from the control school. The overall rate of physician-diagnosed asthma reported for Iowa is around 6.7 percent, the study authors noted.
Using the broadest definition of asthma (physician diagnosis, asthma-like symptoms or asthma medication use) the prevalence rate was 24.6 percent at the study school, compared to 11.7 percent at the control school.
Although results showed that children in the study school located near a CAFO were more likely to have a parent who smoked, which is a risk factor for asthma, the significance of parental smoking diminished when analyzed with other variables such as pet ownership, age and residence in a rural area or on a farm.
Kline stressed caution in considering the study results showing the difference in asthma diagnoses between the two schools. "Since different physicians were diagnosing asthma among the two groups, it's possible that one group may have been more or less likely to receive an asthma diagnosis for similar symptoms," he said.
What the study suggests, he added, is more research on the health effects of CAFOs.
"This is such a trigger issue in Iowa and other agricultural states, so we need to look at these results with caution," Kline said. "More study is needed on the effect of these environments on the community, not just on workers at these facilities or people who are more directly exposed."
Co-author on the Chest article was Sigurdur Sigurdarson, M.D., at the Research Center for Occupational Health and Working Life at the University of Iceland, who received his training at the UI.
In addition to the EHSRC in the UI College of Public Health, the study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Interesting study. Please read on.
Article:
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Near Schools May Pose Asthma Risk
http://www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/521406/
Newswise — Children who attend school near large-scale livestock farms known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) may be at a higher risk for asthma, according to a new study by University of Iowa researchers.
The study, led by Joel Kline, M.D., professor of internal medicine in the UI Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, appears in the June issue of Chest, the peer-reviewed journal of the American College of Chest Physicians.
"Previous research has shown increased rates of asthma among children living in rural areas of Iowa and the United States," said Kline, who also is deputy director of the Environmental Health Sciences Research Center (EHSRC) in the UI College of Public Health, which helped fund the study. "Given that CAFOs release inflammatory substances that can affect the health of workers at these facilities and the air quality of nearby communities, we were interested in whether there was a connection between CAFOs and increased rates of asthma among kids in rural areas."
Researchers surveyed the parents of kindergarten through fifth-grade students attending two Iowa elementary schools to compare the prevalence of asthma among students. The "study" school was located a half-mile from a CAFO in northeast Iowa; the "control" school was in east-central Iowa, more than 10 miles away from any CAFO (generally classified as a livestock facility that houses more than 3,500 animals). Sixty-one participants responded from the study school, and 248 participants responded from the control school.
Study results indicated a significant difference in the prevalence of physician-diagnosed asthma between the two schools: 12 children (19.7 percent) from the study school located near a CAFO and 18 children (7.3 percent) from the control school. The overall rate of physician-diagnosed asthma reported for Iowa is around 6.7 percent, the study authors noted.
Using the broadest definition of asthma (physician diagnosis, asthma-like symptoms or asthma medication use) the prevalence rate was 24.6 percent at the study school, compared to 11.7 percent at the control school.
Although results showed that children in the study school located near a CAFO were more likely to have a parent who smoked, which is a risk factor for asthma, the significance of parental smoking diminished when analyzed with other variables such as pet ownership, age and residence in a rural area or on a farm.
Kline stressed caution in considering the study results showing the difference in asthma diagnoses between the two schools. "Since different physicians were diagnosing asthma among the two groups, it's possible that one group may have been more or less likely to receive an asthma diagnosis for similar symptoms," he said.
What the study suggests, he added, is more research on the health effects of CAFOs.
"This is such a trigger issue in Iowa and other agricultural states, so we need to look at these results with caution," Kline said. "More study is needed on the effect of these environments on the community, not just on workers at these facilities or people who are more directly exposed."
Co-author on the Chest article was Sigurdur Sigurdarson, M.D., at the Research Center for Occupational Health and Working Life at the University of Iceland, who received his training at the UI.
In addition to the EHSRC in the UI College of Public Health, the study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Group Asks That Federal Authorities Investigate the Treatment and Death of 48-Year-Old Asian Elephant – Gita - At the Los Angeles Zoo
This issue is in relation to the female elephant Gita who was found dead at the Los Angeles zoo. It is commonly held now that it was captivity that lead to her death as she was forced to stand on concrete and hard surfaces. Over time, an animal this size will suffer from this type of treatment. Eventfully, her legs gave out and then poisoning occurred due to circulation issues. I’m sure she was in severe pain when it occurred. You can read more about her death here: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/06/animal-
rights-group-holds-los-angeles.html
Here’s a summation of this issue:
“The female elephant named Gita died Saturday morning. She was found sitting with her back legs tucked under her. She had arthritis and a history of foot problems, including surgery last year to remove portions of a toe from her left front foot.
''They knew her feet were rotting away. They knew she had severe arthritis. And yet they made public statements saying everything was healed, she was cured,'' said Bill Dyer of In Defense of Animals. ''They lied to the mayor, they lied to the City Council.''
Article:
Probe of elephant's death sought
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/
montereyherald/news/state/14866997.htm
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Federal authorities should investigate the treatment and death of a 48-year-old Asian elephant at the Los Angeles Zoo, animal rights activists said Tuesday.
Representatives from In Defense of Animals called for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate and said they believe the zoo violated the Animal Welfare Act.
The female elephant named Gita died Saturday morning. She was found sitting with her back legs tucked under her. She had arthritis and a history of foot problems, including surgery last year to remove portions of a toe from her left front foot.
''They knew her feet were rotting away. They knew she had severe arthritis. And yet they made public statements saying everything was healed, she was cured,'' said Bill Dyer of In Defense of Animals. ''They lied to the mayor, they lied to the City Council.''
Zoo officials have not announced the results from a necropsy on the 8,000-pound animal. Pathologists at the California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory System in San Bernardino have said results are at least two weeks away.
Zoo officials have maintained that they never mistreated Gita or other elephants at the zoo.
But the group's complaint to the USDA alleges that zoo personnel saw Gita's condition early during the night before her death but left her without care for at least five hours.
A phone message left for the zoo's spokesman Tuesday was not returned.
Zoo officials said the average life span of an Asian elephant in a zoo is 42 years. Activists said they live until 65 or 70 in their natural habitats.
Earlier this year, the City Council approved a $39 million, 3.5-acre exhibit that will house the two surviving elephants, a 45-year-old African female named Ruby and a 21-year-old Asian bull named Billy.
rights-group-holds-los-angeles.html
Here’s a summation of this issue:
“The female elephant named Gita died Saturday morning. She was found sitting with her back legs tucked under her. She had arthritis and a history of foot problems, including surgery last year to remove portions of a toe from her left front foot.
''They knew her feet were rotting away. They knew she had severe arthritis. And yet they made public statements saying everything was healed, she was cured,'' said Bill Dyer of In Defense of Animals. ''They lied to the mayor, they lied to the City Council.''
Article:
Probe of elephant's death sought
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/
montereyherald/news/state/14866997.htm
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Federal authorities should investigate the treatment and death of a 48-year-old Asian elephant at the Los Angeles Zoo, animal rights activists said Tuesday.
Representatives from In Defense of Animals called for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate and said they believe the zoo violated the Animal Welfare Act.
The female elephant named Gita died Saturday morning. She was found sitting with her back legs tucked under her. She had arthritis and a history of foot problems, including surgery last year to remove portions of a toe from her left front foot.
''They knew her feet were rotting away. They knew she had severe arthritis. And yet they made public statements saying everything was healed, she was cured,'' said Bill Dyer of In Defense of Animals. ''They lied to the mayor, they lied to the City Council.''
Zoo officials have not announced the results from a necropsy on the 8,000-pound animal. Pathologists at the California Animal Health & Food Safety Laboratory System in San Bernardino have said results are at least two weeks away.
Zoo officials have maintained that they never mistreated Gita or other elephants at the zoo.
But the group's complaint to the USDA alleges that zoo personnel saw Gita's condition early during the night before her death but left her without care for at least five hours.
A phone message left for the zoo's spokesman Tuesday was not returned.
Zoo officials said the average life span of an Asian elephant in a zoo is 42 years. Activists said they live until 65 or 70 in their natural habitats.
Earlier this year, the City Council approved a $39 million, 3.5-acre exhibit that will house the two surviving elephants, a 45-year-old African female named Ruby and a 21-year-old Asian bull named Billy.
Whole Foods and Safeway Suspend the Selling of Live Lobsters
A good article the brushes on the issue of having live lobsters in a store. I’ve always found it strange to have them living like that. We’ll see if the other chain stores follow.
Article:
Demise of grocery-store lobsters renews animal welfare debate
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0619/p02s01-ussc.html
By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ATLANTA – Unceremoniously, Whole Foods Markets, the largest natural-foods chain in the world, pulled its lobsters from their tanks last week and boiled them all. For the influential grocer, it was the final lobsterbake.
After an eight-month inquiry, Whole Foods decided that keeping live lobsters in tanks for long periods does not jibe with its stated values promoting the proper care and welfare of food animals.
PAT WELLENBACH/AP/FILE
Ethicists and marketers see the decision as a bold move - one sure to spark more discussion among grocers about the merits and demerits of the lobster tank, which has been the target of a Lobster Liberation campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Safeway, with some 1,700 stores in the US and Canada, last month became the first grocer to drain its tanks and stop selling live lobsters.
To be sure, elimination of the costly tanks - which take up space, require salt water, and need a pumping system to circulate the water - can help the bottom line, marketing experts say. But critics say Whole Foods, which prides itself on providing a shopping "experience" that brings shoppers closer to food producers, has in fact taken a step in the opposite direction with its lobster policy. It's one more sign, they say, that squeamish Americans don't want to think about animals that are the source of their food.
"This is the end of an era, because the lobster is pretty much the last significant animal that [individuals] still have to kill [themselves] before [they] eat it," says Trevor Corson, author of "The Secret Life of Lobsters."
Live lobsters in tanks have long been a draw for stores - part entertainment, part epicurean adventure.
But PETA and others have objected to tank conditions. Wholesalers sometimes keep lobsters in tanks for months before shipping them to grocers and restaurants, in an effort to draw higher prices for the heavy-clawed crustaceans. Grocers have been known to raise water temperatures, so that lobsters will become more active - and more interesting to watch.
In select stores, including several here in Atlanta, Whole Foods experimented with "lobster condos" - stacked pieces of PVC pipe for privacy - in tanks to improve living conditions.
"Over the years, we've had people say, 'You know, you shouldn't have lobsters,' and others say, 'Wow, I love those lobsters, they're so fun to look at,' " says Margaret Wittenberg, vice president of quality control at Whole Foods. "In the end, the chink in the armor was the length of time it was out of its natural environment."
Many in the scientific community say tank living is not torturous for lobsters. One of the simplest beasts in the kingdom, the lobster quickly becomes socialized to crowded conditions, and is accustomed to fluctuating water temperatures, which occur in the wild. Their main sense, smell, soon dulls in holding tanks.
"I have a serious problem with anyone who's ever had a hamburger complaining about lobsters," Mr. Corson says. "The scientists who study lobsters all take them home and eat them."
What's more, Corson says, Whole Foods is failing to capitalize on one of its missions: connecting consumers to producers. Several Maine lobstermen are now printing their websites on lobsters' claw bands, so that buyers can go online and read a bio of the fisherman who caught their dinner. Such an opportunity for fisherman-consumer bonding is now lost by a chain that purports to value that connection, says Corson. "Whatever moral benefit we get from not having to deal with lobsters in our kitchens, we lose a larger awareness of where our food comes from," he says.
Lobsterman John Bear of Orr's Island, Maine, says the real issue is how people react to the lobster they are about to consume. Actress Mary Tyler Moore, on behalf of PETA, crashed a lobsterbake in Maine several years ago "and was run out of town," Mr. Bear says. But her point may resonate with many Americans.
What's more, most Maine lobsters already are sent to Canadian processors, where high-tech, high-pressure steamers cook and flash-freeze the meat. Such "fresh-frozen" product will now be available at Whole Foods.
"You may soon have to come to Maine for a live lobster," says Bear.
Article:
Demise of grocery-store lobsters renews animal welfare debate
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0619/p02s01-ussc.html
By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ATLANTA – Unceremoniously, Whole Foods Markets, the largest natural-foods chain in the world, pulled its lobsters from their tanks last week and boiled them all. For the influential grocer, it was the final lobsterbake.
After an eight-month inquiry, Whole Foods decided that keeping live lobsters in tanks for long periods does not jibe with its stated values promoting the proper care and welfare of food animals.
PAT WELLENBACH/AP/FILE
Ethicists and marketers see the decision as a bold move - one sure to spark more discussion among grocers about the merits and demerits of the lobster tank, which has been the target of a Lobster Liberation campaign by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Safeway, with some 1,700 stores in the US and Canada, last month became the first grocer to drain its tanks and stop selling live lobsters.
To be sure, elimination of the costly tanks - which take up space, require salt water, and need a pumping system to circulate the water - can help the bottom line, marketing experts say. But critics say Whole Foods, which prides itself on providing a shopping "experience" that brings shoppers closer to food producers, has in fact taken a step in the opposite direction with its lobster policy. It's one more sign, they say, that squeamish Americans don't want to think about animals that are the source of their food.
"This is the end of an era, because the lobster is pretty much the last significant animal that [individuals] still have to kill [themselves] before [they] eat it," says Trevor Corson, author of "The Secret Life of Lobsters."
Live lobsters in tanks have long been a draw for stores - part entertainment, part epicurean adventure.
But PETA and others have objected to tank conditions. Wholesalers sometimes keep lobsters in tanks for months before shipping them to grocers and restaurants, in an effort to draw higher prices for the heavy-clawed crustaceans. Grocers have been known to raise water temperatures, so that lobsters will become more active - and more interesting to watch.
In select stores, including several here in Atlanta, Whole Foods experimented with "lobster condos" - stacked pieces of PVC pipe for privacy - in tanks to improve living conditions.
"Over the years, we've had people say, 'You know, you shouldn't have lobsters,' and others say, 'Wow, I love those lobsters, they're so fun to look at,' " says Margaret Wittenberg, vice president of quality control at Whole Foods. "In the end, the chink in the armor was the length of time it was out of its natural environment."
Many in the scientific community say tank living is not torturous for lobsters. One of the simplest beasts in the kingdom, the lobster quickly becomes socialized to crowded conditions, and is accustomed to fluctuating water temperatures, which occur in the wild. Their main sense, smell, soon dulls in holding tanks.
"I have a serious problem with anyone who's ever had a hamburger complaining about lobsters," Mr. Corson says. "The scientists who study lobsters all take them home and eat them."
What's more, Corson says, Whole Foods is failing to capitalize on one of its missions: connecting consumers to producers. Several Maine lobstermen are now printing their websites on lobsters' claw bands, so that buyers can go online and read a bio of the fisherman who caught their dinner. Such an opportunity for fisherman-consumer bonding is now lost by a chain that purports to value that connection, says Corson. "Whatever moral benefit we get from not having to deal with lobsters in our kitchens, we lose a larger awareness of where our food comes from," he says.
Lobsterman John Bear of Orr's Island, Maine, says the real issue is how people react to the lobster they are about to consume. Actress Mary Tyler Moore, on behalf of PETA, crashed a lobsterbake in Maine several years ago "and was run out of town," Mr. Bear says. But her point may resonate with many Americans.
What's more, most Maine lobsters already are sent to Canadian processors, where high-tech, high-pressure steamers cook and flash-freeze the meat. Such "fresh-frozen" product will now be available at Whole Foods.
"You may soon have to come to Maine for a live lobster," says Bear.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Who Belongs In The Zoo? It May Be That Some Animals Just Can't Be Kept Humanely In Captivity
Surprised that Time did this type of article. It does an excellent job of exposing just how unnatural zoos are. For example, as the quote below says, Elephants in Detroit’s harsh winters. Gee, surprisingly, Elephants, from Africa, don’t do well in biting cold. Here are a couple paragraphs to sum up the article below:
“But the reform movement, say critics, didn't go far enough, and those natural-looking habitats are just an illusion created to enhance the visitors' experience. "From the animals' point of view," says Hancocks, "they are not better than they were when they were in cages. It's all done for theatrics."
“One key consideration was Detroit's harsh winters. Although elephants can tolerate cold weather, standing on snow and ice increases the risk of slipping and falling. The only alternative was to have the animals spend most of the winter months indoors, where hard concrete led to foot problems and boredom. Many zoos, like the one in San Diego, have phased out certain species, like the moose, that do better in other climates. "Bringing cold-weather animals into the warm Southern California climate is a bad business decision and a waste of precious resources," says Larry Killmar, the zoo's deputy director of collections.”
Article:
Who Belongs in the Zoo?
IT MAY BE THAT SOME ANIMALS JUST CAN'T BE KEPT HUMANELY IN CAPTI VITY. ZOOS MAY HAVE TO REINVENT THEMSELVES--ONCE AGAIN
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/
0,10987,1202920,00.html
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK
Jun. 19, 2006
Standing alone in a small enclosure, a 21-year-old Asian bull elephant named Billy seems oblivious to the two dozen schoolchildren who press against a chain-link fence to get a closer look. He bobs his massive head up and down and transfers his considerable weight from one side to the other. His trunk unfurls toward the blue plastic cylinder that has been provided for him to play with. Occasionally Billy lumbers over to another part of the yard--his massive gray body, wrinkled skin and billowy, fanlike ears intimidating yet at the same time irresistible. Some of the kids have never been this close to a real, live elephant, and their gasps and laughter convey the consensus: he's cool!
But to animal-rights activists, animal-behavior experts and even some zoo officials, Billy's situation is very uncool. In the wild, elephants roam as much as 30 miles a day, snacking on lush foliage, bathing in water holes and interacting socially with other elephants in groups of up to 20. At the Los Angeles Zoo, Billy has had just under an acre on which to roam. After a $39 million upgrade scheduled for completion in 2009, he will share 3.7 acres (about three football fields) with two companions.
That's generous by today's standards, but critics say it's still too little to give an elephant adequate exercise. Living in such confinement, elephants are prone to arthritis, foot problems and even premature death. Billy's head bobbing, they contend, is typical of elephants in distress and probably results from an inadequate physical environment. "I've come to the conclusion after many years that it is simply not possible for zoos to meet the needs of elephants," asserts David Hancocks, an outspoken zoo consultant and former director of the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle.
He's not alone. Over the past five years, major zoos across the country--San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, the Bronx Zoo in New York City--have quietly made the decision to stop exhibiting elephants altogether, some as soon as they can find homes for the animals and others after the deaths of the ones they have. For zookeepers, it's a continuation of a reform movement that began a generation ago and swept through most major U.S. zoos. The old concrete-and-steel cages that resembled prisons for animals are mostly gone. In fact, the cages themselves are mostly gone. The barriers between people and animals today consist largely of moats and unobtrusive ramparts that give the exhibits the feel of miniature wild habitats.
But the reform movement, say critics, didn't go far enough, and those natural-looking habitats are just an illusion created to enhance the visitors' experience. "From the animals' point of view," says Hancocks, "they are not better than they were when they were in cages. It's all done for theatrics."
Hancocks goes further than most zoo professionals would, but there is growing agreement that zoos are on the verge of yet another wave of transformation. This time the question is whether some animals--not just elephants but also giraffes, bears and others--belong in zoos at all. "On the one hand," says Ron Kagan, executive director of the Detroit Zoological Society, "people want to see the signature animals like elephants, gorillas and giraffes. But we believe that the American public wants us to create facilities for these animals only if we can provide them with a good life." It was that calculus that last year led Kagan to eliminate an elephant exhibit on humane grounds.
One key consideration was Detroit's harsh winters. Although elephants can tolerate cold weather, standing on snow and ice increases the risk of slipping and falling. The only alternative was to have the animals spend most of the winter months indoors, where hard concrete led to foot problems and boredom. Many zoos, like the one in San Diego, have phased out certain species, like the moose, that do better in other climates. "Bringing cold-weather animals into the warm Southern California climate is a bad business decision and a waste of precious resources," says Larry Killmar, the zoo's deputy director of collections.
That's part of a national trend. Zoo directors routinely phase out species that don't thrive in the local environment. The ultimate example: the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, outside Tucson, which houses 300 animal species and 1,200 kinds of plants on 21 acres of desert. Unlike conventional zoos, the museum doesn't even try to take on species that are not native to the area because its mission is not to give visitors a snapshot of wildlife everywhere but to give the full story of a single ecology. "It has a completely different mind-set than most zoos," says Hancocks.
The largest zoos can't really afford to adopt that approach. The San Diego Zoo, for example, draws some 3 million visitors a year and like many big city zoos is a major contributor to the local economy. Zoo officials consider it part of their mission to inspire visitors to care about wildlife and the habitats that nurture it. "We're trying to engage people emotionally," says Andy Baker, senior vice president for animal programs at the Philadelphia Zoo, the nation's oldest. "It's much less about natural history and life cycle these days and more about empathy."
That being the case, Philadelphia, like most major zoos, is not about to transform itself into a place that shows only native fauna--black bears, raccoons, wild turkeys and chipmunks, say. Indeed, the institution has just opened up Big Cat Falls, a flashy exhibition showcasing lions, pumas, jaguars, leopards and tigers. Although the exhibit has drawn fire from animal activists, many experts believe that those animals can do fine in captivity, since even in the wild they spend much of their time sitting around digesting their last meal. Hancocks, for one, thinks gorillas and other primates can reasonably be kept in zoos. "If you can give them an intellectual environment," he says, "so they are using their minds and manipulating their fingers, they can be satisfied."
Bears, however, are a different story. Many experts believe they don't belong in zoos at all. They're too curious and exploratory to be satisfied by an artificial environment. But it's not clear what you do with a bear that's already in captivity. Animal-rights activists have long complained about the highly ritualized, seemingly neurotic behavior of Gus, the polar bear in New York City's Central Park Zoo. "Though Gus is perfectly healthy, people tell us to send him back," says Alison Powers, communications director of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Central Park's parent institution. "But Gus wasn't ripped out of the Arctic. He came from Ohio. He wouldn't stand a chance in the wild."
Many animal-behavior experts also oppose zoo confinement for giraffes, gazelles and other animals designed by evolution to run freely across miles of savannah. "What you see in zoos is just completely unnatural," says Marc Bekoff, an animal behaviorist at the University of Colorado. But most of all, Bekoff and his colleagues oppose the constraints imposed on elephants. "The only place I have seen truly happy elephants in captivity," says Hancocks, "is in the two elephant sanctuaries in the U.S. [in Tennessee and California]. Once you've seen how wonderful their lives are there, you realize whatever zoos do is doomed to be inadequate."
Hancocks' solution? A few national zoos in appropriate climates that tourists from all over the country can visit. "There are two Disney parks," he says. "That's enough for America's children. Similarly, two really good spots for elephants in the country would be sufficient."
A model for what such a spot might look like--and one that animal-behavior experts routinely cite with approval--is the zoo in Oakland, Calif., where four elephants live on 6 acres. "Our philosophy is to just let the elephants be elephants as much as possible," says executive director Joel Parrott. "That means giving them space, not dominating them, and working with them in ways that do not use physical discipline." The animals spend their days socializing, taking dust baths, swimming, eating and wallowing in the mud.
Like Parrott, Baker does not buy the idea that elephants can't be housed humanely--only that his facility doesn't have the money to do so. "I think there's still a huge amount we don't know about what animals need and want," he says. "Could we reach the point someday where we as a community say, We don't think this is a good species to keep in a zoo environment?" That option is always open. But given the pleasure zoos provide--especially for those kids pressed up against the chain-link fence--it's not one to be taken lightly.
—With reporting by Reported by Jeanne McDowell/ Los Angeles, David Bjerklie/ New York
“But the reform movement, say critics, didn't go far enough, and those natural-looking habitats are just an illusion created to enhance the visitors' experience. "From the animals' point of view," says Hancocks, "they are not better than they were when they were in cages. It's all done for theatrics."
“One key consideration was Detroit's harsh winters. Although elephants can tolerate cold weather, standing on snow and ice increases the risk of slipping and falling. The only alternative was to have the animals spend most of the winter months indoors, where hard concrete led to foot problems and boredom. Many zoos, like the one in San Diego, have phased out certain species, like the moose, that do better in other climates. "Bringing cold-weather animals into the warm Southern California climate is a bad business decision and a waste of precious resources," says Larry Killmar, the zoo's deputy director of collections.”
Article:
Who Belongs in the Zoo?
IT MAY BE THAT SOME ANIMALS JUST CAN'T BE KEPT HUMANELY IN CAPTI VITY. ZOOS MAY HAVE TO REINVENT THEMSELVES--ONCE AGAIN
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/
0,10987,1202920,00.html
By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK
Jun. 19, 2006
Standing alone in a small enclosure, a 21-year-old Asian bull elephant named Billy seems oblivious to the two dozen schoolchildren who press against a chain-link fence to get a closer look. He bobs his massive head up and down and transfers his considerable weight from one side to the other. His trunk unfurls toward the blue plastic cylinder that has been provided for him to play with. Occasionally Billy lumbers over to another part of the yard--his massive gray body, wrinkled skin and billowy, fanlike ears intimidating yet at the same time irresistible. Some of the kids have never been this close to a real, live elephant, and their gasps and laughter convey the consensus: he's cool!
But to animal-rights activists, animal-behavior experts and even some zoo officials, Billy's situation is very uncool. In the wild, elephants roam as much as 30 miles a day, snacking on lush foliage, bathing in water holes and interacting socially with other elephants in groups of up to 20. At the Los Angeles Zoo, Billy has had just under an acre on which to roam. After a $39 million upgrade scheduled for completion in 2009, he will share 3.7 acres (about three football fields) with two companions.
That's generous by today's standards, but critics say it's still too little to give an elephant adequate exercise. Living in such confinement, elephants are prone to arthritis, foot problems and even premature death. Billy's head bobbing, they contend, is typical of elephants in distress and probably results from an inadequate physical environment. "I've come to the conclusion after many years that it is simply not possible for zoos to meet the needs of elephants," asserts David Hancocks, an outspoken zoo consultant and former director of the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle.
He's not alone. Over the past five years, major zoos across the country--San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, the Bronx Zoo in New York City--have quietly made the decision to stop exhibiting elephants altogether, some as soon as they can find homes for the animals and others after the deaths of the ones they have. For zookeepers, it's a continuation of a reform movement that began a generation ago and swept through most major U.S. zoos. The old concrete-and-steel cages that resembled prisons for animals are mostly gone. In fact, the cages themselves are mostly gone. The barriers between people and animals today consist largely of moats and unobtrusive ramparts that give the exhibits the feel of miniature wild habitats.
But the reform movement, say critics, didn't go far enough, and those natural-looking habitats are just an illusion created to enhance the visitors' experience. "From the animals' point of view," says Hancocks, "they are not better than they were when they were in cages. It's all done for theatrics."
Hancocks goes further than most zoo professionals would, but there is growing agreement that zoos are on the verge of yet another wave of transformation. This time the question is whether some animals--not just elephants but also giraffes, bears and others--belong in zoos at all. "On the one hand," says Ron Kagan, executive director of the Detroit Zoological Society, "people want to see the signature animals like elephants, gorillas and giraffes. But we believe that the American public wants us to create facilities for these animals only if we can provide them with a good life." It was that calculus that last year led Kagan to eliminate an elephant exhibit on humane grounds.
One key consideration was Detroit's harsh winters. Although elephants can tolerate cold weather, standing on snow and ice increases the risk of slipping and falling. The only alternative was to have the animals spend most of the winter months indoors, where hard concrete led to foot problems and boredom. Many zoos, like the one in San Diego, have phased out certain species, like the moose, that do better in other climates. "Bringing cold-weather animals into the warm Southern California climate is a bad business decision and a waste of precious resources," says Larry Killmar, the zoo's deputy director of collections.
That's part of a national trend. Zoo directors routinely phase out species that don't thrive in the local environment. The ultimate example: the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, outside Tucson, which houses 300 animal species and 1,200 kinds of plants on 21 acres of desert. Unlike conventional zoos, the museum doesn't even try to take on species that are not native to the area because its mission is not to give visitors a snapshot of wildlife everywhere but to give the full story of a single ecology. "It has a completely different mind-set than most zoos," says Hancocks.
The largest zoos can't really afford to adopt that approach. The San Diego Zoo, for example, draws some 3 million visitors a year and like many big city zoos is a major contributor to the local economy. Zoo officials consider it part of their mission to inspire visitors to care about wildlife and the habitats that nurture it. "We're trying to engage people emotionally," says Andy Baker, senior vice president for animal programs at the Philadelphia Zoo, the nation's oldest. "It's much less about natural history and life cycle these days and more about empathy."
That being the case, Philadelphia, like most major zoos, is not about to transform itself into a place that shows only native fauna--black bears, raccoons, wild turkeys and chipmunks, say. Indeed, the institution has just opened up Big Cat Falls, a flashy exhibition showcasing lions, pumas, jaguars, leopards and tigers. Although the exhibit has drawn fire from animal activists, many experts believe that those animals can do fine in captivity, since even in the wild they spend much of their time sitting around digesting their last meal. Hancocks, for one, thinks gorillas and other primates can reasonably be kept in zoos. "If you can give them an intellectual environment," he says, "so they are using their minds and manipulating their fingers, they can be satisfied."
Bears, however, are a different story. Many experts believe they don't belong in zoos at all. They're too curious and exploratory to be satisfied by an artificial environment. But it's not clear what you do with a bear that's already in captivity. Animal-rights activists have long complained about the highly ritualized, seemingly neurotic behavior of Gus, the polar bear in New York City's Central Park Zoo. "Though Gus is perfectly healthy, people tell us to send him back," says Alison Powers, communications director of the Wildlife Conservation Society, Central Park's parent institution. "But Gus wasn't ripped out of the Arctic. He came from Ohio. He wouldn't stand a chance in the wild."
Many animal-behavior experts also oppose zoo confinement for giraffes, gazelles and other animals designed by evolution to run freely across miles of savannah. "What you see in zoos is just completely unnatural," says Marc Bekoff, an animal behaviorist at the University of Colorado. But most of all, Bekoff and his colleagues oppose the constraints imposed on elephants. "The only place I have seen truly happy elephants in captivity," says Hancocks, "is in the two elephant sanctuaries in the U.S. [in Tennessee and California]. Once you've seen how wonderful their lives are there, you realize whatever zoos do is doomed to be inadequate."
Hancocks' solution? A few national zoos in appropriate climates that tourists from all over the country can visit. "There are two Disney parks," he says. "That's enough for America's children. Similarly, two really good spots for elephants in the country would be sufficient."
A model for what such a spot might look like--and one that animal-behavior experts routinely cite with approval--is the zoo in Oakland, Calif., where four elephants live on 6 acres. "Our philosophy is to just let the elephants be elephants as much as possible," says executive director Joel Parrott. "That means giving them space, not dominating them, and working with them in ways that do not use physical discipline." The animals spend their days socializing, taking dust baths, swimming, eating and wallowing in the mud.
Like Parrott, Baker does not buy the idea that elephants can't be housed humanely--only that his facility doesn't have the money to do so. "I think there's still a huge amount we don't know about what animals need and want," he says. "Could we reach the point someday where we as a community say, We don't think this is a good species to keep in a zoo environment?" That option is always open. But given the pleasure zoos provide--especially for those kids pressed up against the chain-link fence--it's not one to be taken lightly.
—With reporting by Reported by Jeanne McDowell/ Los Angeles, David Bjerklie/ New York
In China, Protest Shuts Down Restaurant Serving Cat Meat: Sign of Things to Come or Just One Small Group of Concerned People?
Interesting that there’s even a small movement to stop this despicable practice. We’ll see if it keeps up. And look at the name of the restaurant - Fangji Cat Meatball restaurant. Can’t get anymore clear on what they serve there.
For more on the inherent cruelty of China, and to see how they actually keep and kill cats and dogs see:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/
crash-course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html
Article:
Animal Rights Protest Shuts Down Restaurant Serving Cat Meat
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003959054
June 19, 2006 1:55 p.m. EST
Julie Farby - All Headline News Staff Writer
Beijing, China (AHN) - Animal rights protesters swarmed into a restaurant serving cat meat in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen and forced it to shut down.
Xinhua reports that 40 or so, mainly female demonstrators-holding banners reading "cats and dogs are friends of human beings"-entered the Fangji Cat Meatball restaurant and demanded the owner free any live cats on the premises.
According to the report, there were no live cats in the building, as the owner had already moved them out, but some burst into tears upon finding a skinned cat in a fridge.
The organizer of the protest, identified only as Isobel, the founder of a cat protection Web site, says the restaurant had been chosen because it killed cats in the street and it was "very bad for the students from nearby schools."
Many Chinese, particularly in the south, believe eating dogs and cats are good warming foods to eat during the winter. But China is developing a nascent animal rights movement as more people raise pets, which during the country's Communist heyday was frowned upon as a bourgeois activity.
For more on the inherent cruelty of China, and to see how they actually keep and kill cats and dogs see:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/
crash-course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html
Article:
Animal Rights Protest Shuts Down Restaurant Serving Cat Meat
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003959054
June 19, 2006 1:55 p.m. EST
Julie Farby - All Headline News Staff Writer
Beijing, China (AHN) - Animal rights protesters swarmed into a restaurant serving cat meat in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen and forced it to shut down.
Xinhua reports that 40 or so, mainly female demonstrators-holding banners reading "cats and dogs are friends of human beings"-entered the Fangji Cat Meatball restaurant and demanded the owner free any live cats on the premises.
According to the report, there were no live cats in the building, as the owner had already moved them out, but some burst into tears upon finding a skinned cat in a fridge.
The organizer of the protest, identified only as Isobel, the founder of a cat protection Web site, says the restaurant had been chosen because it killed cats in the street and it was "very bad for the students from nearby schools."
Many Chinese, particularly in the south, believe eating dogs and cats are good warming foods to eat during the winter. But China is developing a nascent animal rights movement as more people raise pets, which during the country's Communist heyday was frowned upon as a bourgeois activity.
Whole Foods Bans Sale of Live Lobsters
A great step to raise awareness to the overall cruelty of eating lobsters, but I wonder why they actually did it. As you’ll see by the following quote, they will revisit the issue in the future:
“Whole Foods leaders will reconsider the decision if they see evidence that it's possible to ensure lobsters and crabs are treated humanely throughout the supply chain, she said.”
We’ll see what happens, but for now, this article provides a good introduction to the issue of eating lobster.
For more on why eating lobster is cruel see: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/vegan/lobster03.htm
Article:
Whole Foods bans sale of live lobsters
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_bi_ge
/live_lobsters_1
By LIZ AUSTIN, Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas - Customers craving fresh crustaceans will have to look beyond Whole Foods Market Inc. after the natural-foods grocery chain decided Thursday to stop selling live lobsters and crabs on the grounds that it's inhumane.
The Austin-based grocer spent seven months studying the sale of live lobsters from ship to supermarket aisle, trying to determine whether the creatures suffer along the way.
In some stores, they experimented with "lobster condos," filling tanks with stacks of large pipes the critters can crawl inside. And they moved the tanks behind seafood counters and away from children's tapping fingers.
Ultimately, Whole Foods management decided to immediately stop selling live lobsters and soft-shell crabs, saying they could not ensure the creatures are treated with respect and compassion.
"We place as much emphasis on the importance of humane treatment and quality of life for all animals as we do on the expectations for quality and flavor," John Mackey, Whole Foods' co-founder and chief executive, said in a statement.
Animal rights activities were thrilled with the decision, not just because of the way lobsters are harvested, shipped and stored but because of the fate that awaits many of them — being dropped alive into a pot of boiling water.
"The ways that lobsters are treated would warrant felony cruelty to animals charges if they were dogs or cats," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
In making its decision, Whole Foods pointed to a November report from the European Food Safety Authority Animal Health and Welfare panel that it said concluded all decapod crustaceans, including lobsters and crabs, appear to have some degree of awareness, feel pain and can learn.
But other scientists and seafood industry officials said Thursday that lobsters have such primitive insect-like nervous systems they don't even have brains and can't experience pain the way animals and humans do.
For example, lobsters can shed a claw that's stuck between two rocks and move on like nothing happened, said Diane Cowan, a marine biologist who studies lobster behavior in Maine.
"They certainly have a nervous system and respond to external stimuli, but whether you can call it pain I don't know," Cowan said.
About 183 million pounds of lobster are caught each year in the United States and Canada, and about 25 percent of that is sold live, according to the Lobster Institute at the University of Maine.
"People who want lobster will have lobster," said Bill Adler, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association. "If this particular chain does not want to serve it, people will go elsewhere."
From now on, Whole Foods will only sell frozen raw and cooked lobster products at its more than 180 stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, said Margaret Wittenberg, vice president of quality standards. And the chain will only deal with suppliers meeting their standards for humane treatment, handling and processing.
Whole Foods leaders will reconsider the decision if they see evidence that it's possible to ensure lobsters and crabs are treated humanely throughout the supply chain, she said.
“Whole Foods leaders will reconsider the decision if they see evidence that it's possible to ensure lobsters and crabs are treated humanely throughout the supply chain, she said.”
We’ll see what happens, but for now, this article provides a good introduction to the issue of eating lobster.
For more on why eating lobster is cruel see: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/campaign/vegan/lobster03.htm
Article:
Whole Foods bans sale of live lobsters
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_bi_ge
/live_lobsters_1
By LIZ AUSTIN, Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas - Customers craving fresh crustaceans will have to look beyond Whole Foods Market Inc. after the natural-foods grocery chain decided Thursday to stop selling live lobsters and crabs on the grounds that it's inhumane.
The Austin-based grocer spent seven months studying the sale of live lobsters from ship to supermarket aisle, trying to determine whether the creatures suffer along the way.
In some stores, they experimented with "lobster condos," filling tanks with stacks of large pipes the critters can crawl inside. And they moved the tanks behind seafood counters and away from children's tapping fingers.
Ultimately, Whole Foods management decided to immediately stop selling live lobsters and soft-shell crabs, saying they could not ensure the creatures are treated with respect and compassion.
"We place as much emphasis on the importance of humane treatment and quality of life for all animals as we do on the expectations for quality and flavor," John Mackey, Whole Foods' co-founder and chief executive, said in a statement.
Animal rights activities were thrilled with the decision, not just because of the way lobsters are harvested, shipped and stored but because of the fate that awaits many of them — being dropped alive into a pot of boiling water.
"The ways that lobsters are treated would warrant felony cruelty to animals charges if they were dogs or cats," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
In making its decision, Whole Foods pointed to a November report from the European Food Safety Authority Animal Health and Welfare panel that it said concluded all decapod crustaceans, including lobsters and crabs, appear to have some degree of awareness, feel pain and can learn.
But other scientists and seafood industry officials said Thursday that lobsters have such primitive insect-like nervous systems they don't even have brains and can't experience pain the way animals and humans do.
For example, lobsters can shed a claw that's stuck between two rocks and move on like nothing happened, said Diane Cowan, a marine biologist who studies lobster behavior in Maine.
"They certainly have a nervous system and respond to external stimuli, but whether you can call it pain I don't know," Cowan said.
About 183 million pounds of lobster are caught each year in the United States and Canada, and about 25 percent of that is sold live, according to the Lobster Institute at the University of Maine.
"People who want lobster will have lobster," said Bill Adler, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association. "If this particular chain does not want to serve it, people will go elsewhere."
From now on, Whole Foods will only sell frozen raw and cooked lobster products at its more than 180 stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, said Margaret Wittenberg, vice president of quality standards. And the chain will only deal with suppliers meeting their standards for humane treatment, handling and processing.
Whole Foods leaders will reconsider the decision if they see evidence that it's possible to ensure lobsters and crabs are treated humanely throughout the supply chain, she said.
In South Africa, Foreign Jet Set Hunters Kill More than a Million Wild Animals a Year
This isn’t some guys just out in the field. These are the jet-set, pretty, clean clothes, rich guys that get together to slap backs and do business. And, in the process, they kill many animals.
Article:
Hunters 'bag a million wild animals a year'
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php
June 18 2006 at 05:09PM
By Mike Cadman
As South Africa moves to regulate hunting, staggering new statistics show "biltong hunters" are killing more than a million wild animals a year.
These local hunters are quite apart from foreign "trophy" hunters who come to South Africa to shoot about 40 000 animals a year, including lion, white rhino, leopard and elephant.
These figures and new research, which shows the hunting industry is even bigger than previously thought and is worth almost R4-billion a year to South Africa, comes as the government this week considers steps towards the regulation and cleaning up of the industry.
'Hunting regulations in South Africa vary considerably from province to province'
The new statistics come from a study undertaken by North West University's Institute for Tourism Management and Leisure Studies in Potchefstroom, which estimates the 200 000 "biltong hunters" spend at least R3-billion rand a year while hunting.
The government calculates that foreign hunters contribute a further R800-million a year to the industry.
The latest figures from Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (Phasa) show that 7 342 foreign hunters, about 53 percent of whom are from the United States, shot at least 39 130 animals between October 1 2004 and September 10 2005. This includes at least 305 lions, 51 elephants, 74 white rhinos, 202 buffaloes and 34 leopards.
According to Phasa the average cost of a trophy white rhino is about $29 000 (R200 000), an elephant $21 000, a lion $17 390, a leopard $8 000 and a buffalo $7 880.
The South African government is strongly supportive of hunting and argues that the "sustainable utilisation" of wild animals is both a morally and financially acceptable practice that contributes towards the economy and helps create jobs, particularly in rural areas.
Michele Pickover of Xwe African Wildlife, an animal rights non-governmental organisation, said that while large amounts of money are spent on hunting, the industry is neither ethical nor sustainable.
"The hunting industry in South Africa is merely farming with wild animals. It is undergoing unsustainable growth and revenues are not reinvested in the preservation of wilderness and the protection of wild animals. What South Africa needs is a holistic, non-consumptive and ethically driven ecotourism industry.
"A 2004 study estimated that ecotourism on private game reserves generated more than 15 times the income derived from livestock and game rearing or foreign hunters and created more jobs," Pickover said.
Hunting regulations in South Africa vary considerably from province to province and are poorly enforced.
"Canned hunting" - animals reared to be shot are hunted in confined areas - and other malpractices within the industry have been widely condemned by hunting organisations and opponents of hunting.
Dr Peet van der Merwe, a senior lecturer at North West University, said: "The research is the most comprehensive done and shows South African hunters contribute a huge amount to local economies.
"The money is generated in the country and spent in the country so contributes directly to the economy."
Van der Merwe said that there that there were about 6 330 exempted game farms - hunting is allowed all year round on exempted game farms - in South Africa covering about 14,7 million hectares. All of South Africa's national parks cover a combined area of 3,7 million hectares.
Van der Merwe said that game farms comprise about 17,9 percent of all agricultural land in South Africa. About 50 percent of game farms are in Limpopo province and the study showed that the most commonly hunted animals are springbok, impala, blesbuck, kudu, warthog, blue wildebeest and gemsbuck.
South Africa is one of the top hunting destinations in Africa and is heavily promoted at international hunting shows and conferences. Most hunting takes place on private game farms but is also permitted in a number of provincial and private game and nature reserves.
Hunting is allowed in, among others, the Pilanesberg National Park, Madikwe Game Reserve, and the Borakalalo and Botsolano Game Reserves run by North West province, the Songimvelo Game Reserve and Mthetomusha Game Reserve run by Mpumalanga province and the Manyaleti Game Reserve and Letaba Ranch run by Limpopo province.
Both Manyaleti and Letaba share unfenced boundaries with the Kruger National Park (KNP) - raising fears that animals from the Kruger are being hunted.
Hunting also takes place on a number or private game reserves including the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR), which comprises the Timbavati, Umbabat, Klaserie and Balule private nature reserves. These reserves also share an unfenced boundary with the KNP.
An elephant shot and wounded by a hunter in the Umbabat Private Nature Reserve in March is believed to have fled into the KNP. During the same month landowners, lodge owners and staff in the APNR were also outraged at the hunting and wounding of a well-known lion.
The draft norms and standards, published earlier this year by the department of environmental affairs and tourism, recommend that in future the minister himself must approve all hunting that takes place in areas adjoining national parks where fences have been removed.
The document also recommends that provincial MECs must personally approve hunting in provincial reserves.
Article:
Hunters 'bag a million wild animals a year'
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php
June 18 2006 at 05:09PM
By Mike Cadman
As South Africa moves to regulate hunting, staggering new statistics show "biltong hunters" are killing more than a million wild animals a year.
These local hunters are quite apart from foreign "trophy" hunters who come to South Africa to shoot about 40 000 animals a year, including lion, white rhino, leopard and elephant.
These figures and new research, which shows the hunting industry is even bigger than previously thought and is worth almost R4-billion a year to South Africa, comes as the government this week considers steps towards the regulation and cleaning up of the industry.
'Hunting regulations in South Africa vary considerably from province to province'
The new statistics come from a study undertaken by North West University's Institute for Tourism Management and Leisure Studies in Potchefstroom, which estimates the 200 000 "biltong hunters" spend at least R3-billion rand a year while hunting.
The government calculates that foreign hunters contribute a further R800-million a year to the industry.
The latest figures from Professional Hunters Association of South Africa (Phasa) show that 7 342 foreign hunters, about 53 percent of whom are from the United States, shot at least 39 130 animals between October 1 2004 and September 10 2005. This includes at least 305 lions, 51 elephants, 74 white rhinos, 202 buffaloes and 34 leopards.
According to Phasa the average cost of a trophy white rhino is about $29 000 (R200 000), an elephant $21 000, a lion $17 390, a leopard $8 000 and a buffalo $7 880.
The South African government is strongly supportive of hunting and argues that the "sustainable utilisation" of wild animals is both a morally and financially acceptable practice that contributes towards the economy and helps create jobs, particularly in rural areas.
Michele Pickover of Xwe African Wildlife, an animal rights non-governmental organisation, said that while large amounts of money are spent on hunting, the industry is neither ethical nor sustainable.
"The hunting industry in South Africa is merely farming with wild animals. It is undergoing unsustainable growth and revenues are not reinvested in the preservation of wilderness and the protection of wild animals. What South Africa needs is a holistic, non-consumptive and ethically driven ecotourism industry.
"A 2004 study estimated that ecotourism on private game reserves generated more than 15 times the income derived from livestock and game rearing or foreign hunters and created more jobs," Pickover said.
Hunting regulations in South Africa vary considerably from province to province and are poorly enforced.
"Canned hunting" - animals reared to be shot are hunted in confined areas - and other malpractices within the industry have been widely condemned by hunting organisations and opponents of hunting.
Dr Peet van der Merwe, a senior lecturer at North West University, said: "The research is the most comprehensive done and shows South African hunters contribute a huge amount to local economies.
"The money is generated in the country and spent in the country so contributes directly to the economy."
Van der Merwe said that there that there were about 6 330 exempted game farms - hunting is allowed all year round on exempted game farms - in South Africa covering about 14,7 million hectares. All of South Africa's national parks cover a combined area of 3,7 million hectares.
Van der Merwe said that game farms comprise about 17,9 percent of all agricultural land in South Africa. About 50 percent of game farms are in Limpopo province and the study showed that the most commonly hunted animals are springbok, impala, blesbuck, kudu, warthog, blue wildebeest and gemsbuck.
South Africa is one of the top hunting destinations in Africa and is heavily promoted at international hunting shows and conferences. Most hunting takes place on private game farms but is also permitted in a number of provincial and private game and nature reserves.
Hunting is allowed in, among others, the Pilanesberg National Park, Madikwe Game Reserve, and the Borakalalo and Botsolano Game Reserves run by North West province, the Songimvelo Game Reserve and Mthetomusha Game Reserve run by Mpumalanga province and the Manyaleti Game Reserve and Letaba Ranch run by Limpopo province.
Both Manyaleti and Letaba share unfenced boundaries with the Kruger National Park (KNP) - raising fears that animals from the Kruger are being hunted.
Hunting also takes place on a number or private game reserves including the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR), which comprises the Timbavati, Umbabat, Klaserie and Balule private nature reserves. These reserves also share an unfenced boundary with the KNP.
An elephant shot and wounded by a hunter in the Umbabat Private Nature Reserve in March is believed to have fled into the KNP. During the same month landowners, lodge owners and staff in the APNR were also outraged at the hunting and wounding of a well-known lion.
The draft norms and standards, published earlier this year by the department of environmental affairs and tourism, recommend that in future the minister himself must approve all hunting that takes place in areas adjoining national parks where fences have been removed.
The document also recommends that provincial MECs must personally approve hunting in provincial reserves.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Disasters Boost Charitable Giving in US, Including to Animal Rights Causes
Great news amongst all the horrible tragedy, including the fact that “[e]nvironmental and animal rights charities grew by 16.4 per cent.”
Let’s hope this year it grows but minus the tragedy.
Article:
Disasters boost charitable giving in US
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/94cbfe04-ff2f-
11da-84f3-0000779e2340.html
By Paul Sullivan in New York
Published: June 19 2006 05:48 | Last updated: June 19 2006 05:48
The Asian tsunami and the hurricanes in the US gulf coast pushed charitable giving in the US to a near-record $260.3bn last year – a $15.4bn increase on 2004.
The last time Americans gave so much to charity was in 2000, at the height of the technology boom, when the annual Giving USA survey of philanthropy put their contributions at a record $260.5bn (€210bn, £140bn).
This year’s survey, to be released on Monday, puts charitable giving as a percentage of GDP at 2.1 per cent, above the 40-year average of 1.9 per cent.
Disaster relief accounted for half of the surge in giving, although 59 per cent of charities had an increase in donations even before relief was factored in.
As always, individuals were the biggest source of donations; their contributions last year rose by 6.4 per cent to $199.1bn, accounting for 76.5 per cent of the total.
Corporate giving rose 22.5 per cent to $13.8bn, while foundations increased their giving by 5.6 per cent to $30bn.
Seventy-nine per cent of disaster relief – $5.8bn – was contributed by individuals. This largess was encouraged by the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act, which doubled the tax deduction for cash donations to all public charities, including organisations that had nothing to do with the hurricane relief efforts, from 50 per cent of a person’s income to 100 per cent.
The act was intended to ensure that other charities did not suffer when wealthy Americans channelled their giving to relief organisations, as was the case after the September 11 2001 terror attacks. Some $2.8bn was given in response to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, according to a 2004 report.
“Disaster relief certainly played a role in 2005,” says Richard Jolly, chairman of the Giving USA Foundation. “Relief contributions are estimated to be roughly 3 per cent of the total.”
The disasters also spurred donations in kind that are more difficult to calculate, says George Ruotolo, acting chair of the Giving Institute, a consultancy. He points to religious groups sending goods and volunteers to the disaster areas, but says it is difficult to calculate how much they gave because of lack of data.
The study reported two other areas of dramatic growth. Human services agencies saw a 15 per cent increase in donations excluding disaster relief; when that money was factored in, the increase jumped to 32 per cent. This comes after a three-year decline.
Environmental and animal rights charities grew by 16.4 per cent.
Religious organisations received the largest share of dollars, an estimated $93.2bn in 2005. Organisations that focused on the arts and on health experienced a drop in funding, however.
Arts giving had historically been subject to wild swings linked to big gifts and bequests, the study said, and last year that swing was down 3.4 per cent.
Health charities have shown inflation-adjusted declines or only moderate growth since 2000; their 2.7 per cent gain last year became a 0.7 per cent loss when inflation was taken into account.
From 1965 to 2005 inflation-adjusted giving increased 185 per cent, from $91.2bn to $260.3bn. Most of that growth has happened since 1996, when giving was $173.1bn.
Let’s hope this year it grows but minus the tragedy.
Article:
Disasters boost charitable giving in US
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/94cbfe04-ff2f-
11da-84f3-0000779e2340.html
By Paul Sullivan in New York
Published: June 19 2006 05:48 | Last updated: June 19 2006 05:48
The Asian tsunami and the hurricanes in the US gulf coast pushed charitable giving in the US to a near-record $260.3bn last year – a $15.4bn increase on 2004.
The last time Americans gave so much to charity was in 2000, at the height of the technology boom, when the annual Giving USA survey of philanthropy put their contributions at a record $260.5bn (€210bn, £140bn).
This year’s survey, to be released on Monday, puts charitable giving as a percentage of GDP at 2.1 per cent, above the 40-year average of 1.9 per cent.
Disaster relief accounted for half of the surge in giving, although 59 per cent of charities had an increase in donations even before relief was factored in.
As always, individuals were the biggest source of donations; their contributions last year rose by 6.4 per cent to $199.1bn, accounting for 76.5 per cent of the total.
Corporate giving rose 22.5 per cent to $13.8bn, while foundations increased their giving by 5.6 per cent to $30bn.
Seventy-nine per cent of disaster relief – $5.8bn – was contributed by individuals. This largess was encouraged by the Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act, which doubled the tax deduction for cash donations to all public charities, including organisations that had nothing to do with the hurricane relief efforts, from 50 per cent of a person’s income to 100 per cent.
The act was intended to ensure that other charities did not suffer when wealthy Americans channelled their giving to relief organisations, as was the case after the September 11 2001 terror attacks. Some $2.8bn was given in response to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, according to a 2004 report.
“Disaster relief certainly played a role in 2005,” says Richard Jolly, chairman of the Giving USA Foundation. “Relief contributions are estimated to be roughly 3 per cent of the total.”
The disasters also spurred donations in kind that are more difficult to calculate, says George Ruotolo, acting chair of the Giving Institute, a consultancy. He points to religious groups sending goods and volunteers to the disaster areas, but says it is difficult to calculate how much they gave because of lack of data.
The study reported two other areas of dramatic growth. Human services agencies saw a 15 per cent increase in donations excluding disaster relief; when that money was factored in, the increase jumped to 32 per cent. This comes after a three-year decline.
Environmental and animal rights charities grew by 16.4 per cent.
Religious organisations received the largest share of dollars, an estimated $93.2bn in 2005. Organisations that focused on the arts and on health experienced a drop in funding, however.
Arts giving had historically been subject to wild swings linked to big gifts and bequests, the study said, and last year that swing was down 3.4 per cent.
Health charities have shown inflation-adjusted declines or only moderate growth since 2000; their 2.7 per cent gain last year became a 0.7 per cent loss when inflation was taken into account.
From 1965 to 2005 inflation-adjusted giving increased 185 per cent, from $91.2bn to $260.3bn. Most of that growth has happened since 1996, when giving was $173.1bn.
Commercial Whaling May Once Again Continue: Vote at IWC Weakens Commercial Whaling Ban
We’ll see what happens today. Yet, not good news.
Very sad. Even more, like typical spoiled, rich babies, the “winners” then actually rub it in to the anti-whaling side and then disallow them to speak. Gee, wonder where we’ve seen this before. These quotes sum it up:
“The Japanese applauded -- which was met by head-shaking from whaling opponents. The winners shouted "sore losers'' at opponents when they tried to continue debating the resolution after the vote. The Irish delegate looked despaired, holding his head in his hands.
Representatives of anti-whaling countries were booed and shouted down after they yelled into the microphone that they did not recognize Iceland as an IWC member because it had previously dropped out. Delegates from both sides traded barbs, talking over each other to try to get their reactions heard for the record.”
Article:
Vote at IWC weakens commercial whaling ban
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/
CTVNews/20060618/
japan_whaling_060618/20060618?hub=SciTech
Updated Sun. Jun. 18 2006 11:29 PM ET
Associated Press
A slim majority of countries on the International Whaling Commission voted Sunday in support of a resumption of commercial whaling, but pro-whaling countries still lack the numbers needed to overturn a 20-year-old ban.
The resolution, approved 33-32 with one abstention, declares that the moratorium on commercial whaling was meant to be temporary and is no longer needed.
But to reverse the ban imposed in 1986, another vote supported by 75 per cent of the 70 IWC members would be required.
The IWC meeting on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts erupted in shouting and finger-pointing after the vote on the resolution authored by six Caribbean countries and backed by the major pro-whaling countries Norway, Iceland, Japan and Russia.
The Japanese applauded -- which was met by head-shaking from whaling opponents. The winners shouted "sore losers'' at opponents when they tried to continue debating the resolution after the vote. The Irish delegate looked despaired, holding his head in his hands.
Representatives of anti-whaling countries were booed and shouted down after they yelled into the microphone that they did not recognize Iceland as an IWC member because it had previously dropped out. Delegates from both sides traded barbs, talking over each other to try to get their reactions heard for the record.
Still it was not immediately clear what impact the vote would have.
"This shows the power balance is shifting, but it really shows that both sides need to sit down, compromise and stop yelling from the trenches,'' said Rune Frovik, of pro-whaling group High North Alliance.
Glenn Inwood, a spokesman for the Japanese delegation, said the vote was a "historic moment.''
"It's the first serious setback for those against whaling in years. It's only a matter of time before the commercial ban is overturned,'' he predicted.
Delegates from small Caribbean and African countries said the resolution -- the first of its kind since the ban -- was needed to force the IWC to take up its original mandate of managing whale hunts and not banning them altogether. The backers have been pushing to lift the ban, saying it was a way to protect fish stocks from whales and give their small islands food security.
"We're dealing with an ecosystem where whales are on top of the food chain,'' said Daven Joseph, an IWC delegate from St. Kitts and Nevis.
"That's like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation,'' countered Vassili Papastavrou, a whale biologist for the International Fund for Animal Welfare. "The real issue is overfishing, not whales.''
The resolution was drafted by St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Dominica and Antigua.
Chris Carter, New Zealand's Conservation Minister, said though the vote was significant, it marked a hollow victory.
"It will ultimately lead to the defeat of Japan's pro-whaling ambitions,'' he said, noting it would show the world what is going on within the IWC.
"Japan had a long, expensive campaign to achieve a whaling majority, which they got today,'' he added, referring to allegations that Japan has bought votes by giving fishing aid to developing countries.
Japan and other pro-whaling countries had lost four previous and more significant pro-whaling votes at the meeting, thwarting their predicted takeover of the organization.
But with each vote, conservationists have become more worried that pro-whaling countries will eventually control the commission.
"This is going to wake people up and cause a big backlash, but it's also pretty bad, too,'' said Javier Figueroa, of the Argentinian delegation, which opposes commercial whaling.
Both Japan and Iceland kill whales for scientific research -- which critics call a sham -- and sell the carcasses. Norway ignores the moratorium and openly conducts commercial whaling.
Environmental groups have accused developing countries of voting with Japan in return for money for fisheries projects -- which Japan and those countries have repeatedly denied.
Caribbean tourism officials have said they are concerned that their countries' support of whaling might lead travellers to boycott the region.
"Such threats are tantamount to economic terrorism,'' said Joanne Massiah, Food Production and Marine Resources Minister for the Caribbean country of Antigua and Barbuda.
The IWC conference was set to continue on Monday.
Very sad. Even more, like typical spoiled, rich babies, the “winners” then actually rub it in to the anti-whaling side and then disallow them to speak. Gee, wonder where we’ve seen this before. These quotes sum it up:
“The Japanese applauded -- which was met by head-shaking from whaling opponents. The winners shouted "sore losers'' at opponents when they tried to continue debating the resolution after the vote. The Irish delegate looked despaired, holding his head in his hands.
Representatives of anti-whaling countries were booed and shouted down after they yelled into the microphone that they did not recognize Iceland as an IWC member because it had previously dropped out. Delegates from both sides traded barbs, talking over each other to try to get their reactions heard for the record.”
Article:
Vote at IWC weakens commercial whaling ban
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/
CTVNews/20060618/
japan_whaling_060618/20060618?hub=SciTech
Updated Sun. Jun. 18 2006 11:29 PM ET
Associated Press
A slim majority of countries on the International Whaling Commission voted Sunday in support of a resumption of commercial whaling, but pro-whaling countries still lack the numbers needed to overturn a 20-year-old ban.
The resolution, approved 33-32 with one abstention, declares that the moratorium on commercial whaling was meant to be temporary and is no longer needed.
But to reverse the ban imposed in 1986, another vote supported by 75 per cent of the 70 IWC members would be required.
The IWC meeting on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts erupted in shouting and finger-pointing after the vote on the resolution authored by six Caribbean countries and backed by the major pro-whaling countries Norway, Iceland, Japan and Russia.
The Japanese applauded -- which was met by head-shaking from whaling opponents. The winners shouted "sore losers'' at opponents when they tried to continue debating the resolution after the vote. The Irish delegate looked despaired, holding his head in his hands.
Representatives of anti-whaling countries were booed and shouted down after they yelled into the microphone that they did not recognize Iceland as an IWC member because it had previously dropped out. Delegates from both sides traded barbs, talking over each other to try to get their reactions heard for the record.
Still it was not immediately clear what impact the vote would have.
"This shows the power balance is shifting, but it really shows that both sides need to sit down, compromise and stop yelling from the trenches,'' said Rune Frovik, of pro-whaling group High North Alliance.
Glenn Inwood, a spokesman for the Japanese delegation, said the vote was a "historic moment.''
"It's the first serious setback for those against whaling in years. It's only a matter of time before the commercial ban is overturned,'' he predicted.
Delegates from small Caribbean and African countries said the resolution -- the first of its kind since the ban -- was needed to force the IWC to take up its original mandate of managing whale hunts and not banning them altogether. The backers have been pushing to lift the ban, saying it was a way to protect fish stocks from whales and give their small islands food security.
"We're dealing with an ecosystem where whales are on top of the food chain,'' said Daven Joseph, an IWC delegate from St. Kitts and Nevis.
"That's like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation,'' countered Vassili Papastavrou, a whale biologist for the International Fund for Animal Welfare. "The real issue is overfishing, not whales.''
The resolution was drafted by St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, Dominica and Antigua.
Chris Carter, New Zealand's Conservation Minister, said though the vote was significant, it marked a hollow victory.
"It will ultimately lead to the defeat of Japan's pro-whaling ambitions,'' he said, noting it would show the world what is going on within the IWC.
"Japan had a long, expensive campaign to achieve a whaling majority, which they got today,'' he added, referring to allegations that Japan has bought votes by giving fishing aid to developing countries.
Japan and other pro-whaling countries had lost four previous and more significant pro-whaling votes at the meeting, thwarting their predicted takeover of the organization.
But with each vote, conservationists have become more worried that pro-whaling countries will eventually control the commission.
"This is going to wake people up and cause a big backlash, but it's also pretty bad, too,'' said Javier Figueroa, of the Argentinian delegation, which opposes commercial whaling.
Both Japan and Iceland kill whales for scientific research -- which critics call a sham -- and sell the carcasses. Norway ignores the moratorium and openly conducts commercial whaling.
Environmental groups have accused developing countries of voting with Japan in return for money for fisheries projects -- which Japan and those countries have repeatedly denied.
Caribbean tourism officials have said they are concerned that their countries' support of whaling might lead travellers to boycott the region.
"Such threats are tantamount to economic terrorism,'' said Joanne Massiah, Food Production and Marine Resources Minister for the Caribbean country of Antigua and Barbuda.
The IWC conference was set to continue on Monday.
Independent Journalist Asserts Constitutional Rights to Resist Federal Grand Jury Subpoena: Resists the Witch Hunt Againt Animal Rights
Great article that really shows the extent the government is going in order to compel people to talk even when they might not know anything. Here’s a quick quote from the article below:
“The U.S. government's harassment of Josh Wolf is part of a broader, renewed use of the federal grand jury to suppress dissent. Information compiled by the GJRP shows that grand juries are currently being used against environmental and animal rights activists, as well as groups that have historically struggled for self-determination, like the Black Panther Party, frequently based on information from years, and in some cases decades, ago. GJRP reports that in the past year, at least 54 individuals have been subpoenaed and/or indicted in Denver, Eugene, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, FL, and Trenton, NJ. At least fourteen people refused to testify, and some were jailed for contempt.”
Article:
Independent Journalist Asserts Constitutional Rights to Resist Federal Grand Jury Subpoena
http://www.envirolink.org/external.html?itemid=200606190644500.931192
by Kris Hermes ( krishermes [at] earthlink.net )
Saturday Jun 17th, 2006 7:12 PM
U.S. government dismissed subpoena yesterday to compel testimony and video evidence to grand jury in San Francisco.
For Immediate Release: June 16, 2006
Grand Jury Resistance Project
gjrp [at] fbiwitchhunt.org
San Francisco -- In a show of courage against an attempt by the federal government to obtain First Amendment protected information, independent journalist Josh Wolf refused to testify or provide video evidence yesterday to a federal grand jury convened in February. The grand jury is investigating events surrounding a July 2005 demonstration against the Group of Eight (G8) meeting that year in Scotland. Wolf asserted his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights as a basis for declining to answer the grand jury.
In a closed session, San Francisco District Court Judge William Alsup threatened Wolf with confinement for civil contempt if he did not comply with the subpoena. Judge Alsup was not the judge assigned to the case, and unfamiliar with prior proceedings, but insisted on hearing the matter. Making his position clear from the start, Judge Alsup ordered the hearing closed, barring a number of supporters and a San Francisco Chronicle reporter from the courtroom. The order ignored both Ninth Circuit case law and a previous order by Magistrate Maria-Elena James requiring that the hearings in the case be open.
At one point during the closed hearing, Judge Alsup called in U.S. Marshals in what appeared to be an attempt to intimidate Wolf and his attorneys. "What we saw today was the harassment and intimidation of a journalist and an activist," said Samantha Levens of the Grand Jury Resistance Project (GJRP), who observed the Marshals in the courtroom. "Yet, the dismissal of the subpoena shows how important it is to resist misuse of government power in order to obstruct political fishing expeditions and suppression of free speech rights."
The grand jury was convened ostensibly to investigate alleged damage to a police vehicle at the time of the July protest. However, the GJRP, a coalition of lawyers and activists working to resist politically motivated attacks by government, condemned the still-active investigation. The GJRP claimed that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are working together to misuse the federal grand jury to circumvent the California Shield Law, which protects journalists' files and notes.
The U.S. government's harassment of Josh Wolf is part of a broader, renewed use of the federal grand jury to suppress dissent. Information compiled by the GJRP shows that grand juries are currently being used against environmental and animal rights activists, as well as groups that have historically struggled for self-determination, like the Black Panther Party, frequently based on information from years, and in some cases decades, ago. GJRP reports that in the past year, at least 54 individuals have been subpoenaed and/or indicted in Denver, Eugene, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, FL, and Trenton, NJ. At least fourteen people refused to testify, and some were jailed for contempt. In an affidavit filed in connection with the indictment of three environmental activists in Auburn, CA, the FBI irrelevantly referenced "anarchists" and "anarchism" 26 times. The GJRP believes that the grand jury to which Josh Wolf was subpoenaed is part of the same, broad and unconstitutional federal investigation into anarchist and antiwar activity as well as other political movements that oppose U.S. policies.
“The U.S. government's harassment of Josh Wolf is part of a broader, renewed use of the federal grand jury to suppress dissent. Information compiled by the GJRP shows that grand juries are currently being used against environmental and animal rights activists, as well as groups that have historically struggled for self-determination, like the Black Panther Party, frequently based on information from years, and in some cases decades, ago. GJRP reports that in the past year, at least 54 individuals have been subpoenaed and/or indicted in Denver, Eugene, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, FL, and Trenton, NJ. At least fourteen people refused to testify, and some were jailed for contempt.”
Article:
Independent Journalist Asserts Constitutional Rights to Resist Federal Grand Jury Subpoena
http://www.envirolink.org/external.html?itemid=200606190644500.931192
by Kris Hermes ( krishermes [at] earthlink.net )
Saturday Jun 17th, 2006 7:12 PM
U.S. government dismissed subpoena yesterday to compel testimony and video evidence to grand jury in San Francisco.
For Immediate Release: June 16, 2006
Grand Jury Resistance Project
gjrp [at] fbiwitchhunt.org
San Francisco -- In a show of courage against an attempt by the federal government to obtain First Amendment protected information, independent journalist Josh Wolf refused to testify or provide video evidence yesterday to a federal grand jury convened in February. The grand jury is investigating events surrounding a July 2005 demonstration against the Group of Eight (G8) meeting that year in Scotland. Wolf asserted his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights as a basis for declining to answer the grand jury.
In a closed session, San Francisco District Court Judge William Alsup threatened Wolf with confinement for civil contempt if he did not comply with the subpoena. Judge Alsup was not the judge assigned to the case, and unfamiliar with prior proceedings, but insisted on hearing the matter. Making his position clear from the start, Judge Alsup ordered the hearing closed, barring a number of supporters and a San Francisco Chronicle reporter from the courtroom. The order ignored both Ninth Circuit case law and a previous order by Magistrate Maria-Elena James requiring that the hearings in the case be open.
At one point during the closed hearing, Judge Alsup called in U.S. Marshals in what appeared to be an attempt to intimidate Wolf and his attorneys. "What we saw today was the harassment and intimidation of a journalist and an activist," said Samantha Levens of the Grand Jury Resistance Project (GJRP), who observed the Marshals in the courtroom. "Yet, the dismissal of the subpoena shows how important it is to resist misuse of government power in order to obstruct political fishing expeditions and suppression of free speech rights."
The grand jury was convened ostensibly to investigate alleged damage to a police vehicle at the time of the July protest. However, the GJRP, a coalition of lawyers and activists working to resist politically motivated attacks by government, condemned the still-active investigation. The GJRP claimed that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are working together to misuse the federal grand jury to circumvent the California Shield Law, which protects journalists' files and notes.
The U.S. government's harassment of Josh Wolf is part of a broader, renewed use of the federal grand jury to suppress dissent. Information compiled by the GJRP shows that grand juries are currently being used against environmental and animal rights activists, as well as groups that have historically struggled for self-determination, like the Black Panther Party, frequently based on information from years, and in some cases decades, ago. GJRP reports that in the past year, at least 54 individuals have been subpoenaed and/or indicted in Denver, Eugene, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Diego, Tampa, FL, and Trenton, NJ. At least fourteen people refused to testify, and some were jailed for contempt. In an affidavit filed in connection with the indictment of three environmental activists in Auburn, CA, the FBI irrelevantly referenced "anarchists" and "anarchism" 26 times. The GJRP believes that the grand jury to which Josh Wolf was subpoenaed is part of the same, broad and unconstitutional federal investigation into anarchist and antiwar activity as well as other political movements that oppose U.S. policies.
Activists Confront Beyonce Knowles About Her Love of Fur
I actually have no idea who she is, but many probably do.
Article:
Animal Rights Campaigners Confront Beyonce Knowles
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/
June 18, 2006 10:00 a.m. EST
Joanna Wypior - All Headline News Staff Reporter
New York, NY (AHN) - Two animal rights activists were asked to leave a New York City restaurant after having confronted singer and actress Beyonce Knowles about her apparent love for fur coats.
According to BBC news, Knowles remained silent as the activists quizzed her as to why she uses fur in her fashion collection, House of Dereon.
A video of the meeting at the restaurant was made by the campaigners and obtained by the Web site TMZ.com. They had also tried to show Knowles a DVD of animals being killed before being escorted out.
A spokesperson for Knowles says she has no comment about the incident.
Article:
Animal Rights Campaigners Confront Beyonce Knowles
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/
June 18, 2006 10:00 a.m. EST
Joanna Wypior - All Headline News Staff Reporter
New York, NY (AHN) - Two animal rights activists were asked to leave a New York City restaurant after having confronted singer and actress Beyonce Knowles about her apparent love for fur coats.
According to BBC news, Knowles remained silent as the activists quizzed her as to why she uses fur in her fashion collection, House of Dereon.
A video of the meeting at the restaurant was made by the campaigners and obtained by the Web site TMZ.com. They had also tried to show Knowles a DVD of animals being killed before being escorted out.
A spokesperson for Knowles says she has no comment about the incident.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Secure the Release of a Number of Chimpanzee Elders from NIH-Related Labs
From another group.
Hi everyone,
This won't take anyone long, don't worry!
You will probably all be aware of Project R&R:Release and Restitution for
chimpanzees in US laboratories that was recently started up by NEAVS, the New
England Anti-Vivisection society.
http://www.releasechimps.org/
A very important part of this is a petition to be sent to the NIH, lab
directors etc to secure the release of a number of chimpanzee elders in their
late 40s/early 50s (a draft of this is copied below: I hope the format holds
out!). This can be signed online at:
http://ga1.org/campaign/wenka
On behalf of Project R&R, I'd like to ask you all to sign it (if you haven't already), and to distribute it to your colleagues and friends, and also any
other e-mail lists/newsgroups that you may be part of. It goes without
saying that the more signatures we get, the better!
Thanks very much for this,
Jarrod.
Dr Jarrod Bailey
Science Advisor
Project R&R: Release and Restitution for Chimpanzees in US Laboratories
New England Anti-Vivisection Society
333 Washington St., Ste. 850
Boston, MA 02108
Dear NIH Lab Director/University President:
The most recent information made available from [facility] indicates that it
holds chimpanzees born in the 1950s. Many of these individuals have been
used in research protocols or for breeding purposes for decades. They deserve
release into permanent sanctuary before they die. These chimpanzees have little
time left.
We urgently request that you exercise your power to secure the transfer of
these individuals immediately into permanent sanctuary where they may enjoy a
life of sun and space and a chimpanzee family with the relative freedom they
so deserve after so many years of research and/or breeding. Project R&R
partners with several highly reputable sanctuaries who have indicated their
ability to accept these individuals immediately.
The Chimpanzee Elders (and labs where held)
Gwen - age 54 (New Iberia)
Susie - age 52 (Primate Foundation of Arizona)
Wenka - age 52 (Yerkes)
Cheeta - age 49 (Yerkes)
Flo - age 49 (Alamogordo)
Lulu - age 49 (Yerkes)
Maxine - age 49 (Yerkes)
Harriet - age 49 (Primate Foundation of Arizona)
Jenda - age 48 (Yerkes)
Karen - age 48 (New Iberia)
Jake - age 48 (New Iberia)
Guy - age 47 (Alamogordo)
Boka - age 47 (Yerkes)
Billy Ray - age 47 (New Iberia)
Given the importance of chimpanzee social bonding, we also request that each
individual be sent along with at least one other chimpanzee cage mate or
friend. Chimpanzees form powerful bonds. It is essential that these
relationships be respected and appreciated as critical to the individuals' well being.
Disrupting family bonds and friendships is a hardship many have endured for
years. The elders must not have to pay for their release with the loss of one
more relative or friend.
A recent independent public opinion survey commissioned by Project R&R found
that 71% of Americans support the release of chimpanzees who have spent
longer than 10 years in a laboratory. These chimpanzee individuals have far
surpassed that mark.
Sincerely,
Project R&R and its supporters:
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]
Hi everyone,
This won't take anyone long, don't worry!
You will probably all be aware of Project R&R:Release and Restitution for
chimpanzees in US laboratories that was recently started up by NEAVS, the New
England Anti-Vivisection society.
http://www.releasechimps.org/
A very important part of this is a petition to be sent to the NIH, lab
directors etc to secure the release of a number of chimpanzee elders in their
late 40s/early 50s (a draft of this is copied below: I hope the format holds
out!). This can be signed online at:
http://ga1.org/campaign/wenka
On behalf of Project R&R, I'd like to ask you all to sign it (if you haven't already), and to distribute it to your colleagues and friends, and also any
other e-mail lists/newsgroups that you may be part of. It goes without
saying that the more signatures we get, the better!
Thanks very much for this,
Jarrod.
Dr Jarrod Bailey
Science Advisor
Project R&R: Release and Restitution for Chimpanzees in US Laboratories
New England Anti-Vivisection Society
333 Washington St., Ste. 850
Boston, MA 02108
Dear NIH Lab Director/University President:
The most recent information made available from [facility] indicates that it
holds chimpanzees born in the 1950s. Many of these individuals have been
used in research protocols or for breeding purposes for decades. They deserve
release into permanent sanctuary before they die. These chimpanzees have little
time left.
We urgently request that you exercise your power to secure the transfer of
these individuals immediately into permanent sanctuary where they may enjoy a
life of sun and space and a chimpanzee family with the relative freedom they
so deserve after so many years of research and/or breeding. Project R&R
partners with several highly reputable sanctuaries who have indicated their
ability to accept these individuals immediately.
The Chimpanzee Elders (and labs where held)
Gwen - age 54 (New Iberia)
Susie - age 52 (Primate Foundation of Arizona)
Wenka - age 52 (Yerkes)
Cheeta - age 49 (Yerkes)
Flo - age 49 (Alamogordo)
Lulu - age 49 (Yerkes)
Maxine - age 49 (Yerkes)
Harriet - age 49 (Primate Foundation of Arizona)
Jenda - age 48 (Yerkes)
Karen - age 48 (New Iberia)
Jake - age 48 (New Iberia)
Guy - age 47 (Alamogordo)
Boka - age 47 (Yerkes)
Billy Ray - age 47 (New Iberia)
Given the importance of chimpanzee social bonding, we also request that each
individual be sent along with at least one other chimpanzee cage mate or
friend. Chimpanzees form powerful bonds. It is essential that these
relationships be respected and appreciated as critical to the individuals' well being.
Disrupting family bonds and friendships is a hardship many have endured for
years. The elders must not have to pay for their release with the loss of one
more relative or friend.
A recent independent public opinion survey commissioned by Project R&R found
that 71% of Americans support the release of chimpanzees who have spent
longer than 10 years in a laboratory. These chimpanzee individuals have far
surpassed that mark.
Sincerely,
Project R&R and its supporters:
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]
An In-depth Look at Horse Slaughter: Why Is It Occurring, How Is It Occurring and What Will Occur In The Future?
This is another great article on horse slaughter for meat. It’s a definite read to be fully informed of this disturbing practice.
Here are a couple additional resources for more information on this issue. Please contact them to see how you can help or for more information. They are also listed at the end of the article:
Habitat for Horses
http://www.habitatforhorses.org/
Phone: (866)HFH-LSER
HSUS
http://www.hsus.org
2100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 452-1100
Article:
The Killing Floor
Three Slaughterhouses Marked the End of the Road for 88,000 American Horses in 2005. But It’s Europeans Who Are Eating the Meat.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3173&src=
by Josh Harkinson
Horses head in for slaughter at the now-shuttered Florence Packing facility in Stanwood, Washington in the early 1990s. There were then 11 horse slaughter plants in the U.S.
©Gail Eisnitz
In the East Texas hamlet of Kaufman last month, a fetid wind ruffled the stripes of the largest American flag in town. It had been a gift to locals from executives of the pungent Dallas Crown slaughterhouse. A few blocks away, company president Michael deBeukelaar stood in City Hall for the Pledge of Allegiance, conspicuously holding his tongue. The Belgian and his foreign bosses were about to learn whether a city commission would force a shutdown of the plant, which had supplied meat to tables in Europe and Japan for more than 20 years. deBeukelaar seemed most concerned with one intractable problem: Americans don’t eat horse.
Clad in a European-cut blazer with felt arm patches, deBeukelaar squared off against a Texan in a Johnny Cash getup of faded black. Houstonian Jerry Finch had for years been a leader in local and national fights to shut down Dallas Crown, Fort Worth-based Beltex Corporation and Cavel International of DeKalb, Illinois, the country’s three horse slaughterhouses, which together killed 88,000 horses last year. Finch traded sharp whispers with a posse of activists. “Nobody wants to recognize horse slaughter for what it is,” he’d said earlier that day. “It’s just murder.”
The commission reached a decision late in the night, unanimously ruling to close the plant by September. An attorney for Dallas Crown pledged to take the battle to court. Finch stepped outside, lit a cigarette and cried. “We did it,” he said as a comrade embraced him. The activists ordered vegetarian pizzas and partied into the morning.
But many other equine enthusiasts around the country weren’t celebrating. Shuttering the slaughterhouses of Texas won’t help horses, they say, and it might just force them someplace worse.
Ill Winds
On a prominent hillock above Kaufman’s main highway, the corrugated metal facade of the Dallas Crown slaughterhouse announced itself without a sign. Its herald was borne on the wind—a simultaneously musky and astringent odor of horse fur, chlorine, feces and blood.
Finch, whose white moustache lightens a red leathery face, lumbered past the plant and down a side street in a jacked-up Dodge Ram that could be straight off any Texas back 40. He grew up in Amarillo, where he worked summers at a riding stable rounding up steeds. “It was just the best damn job in the world,” he says. College led Finch out of the pasture and into a sales job in the Houston suburbs, but not to happiness. In 1995 he retired early, bought a ranch and rekindled his passion for riding animals. He now operates Habitat for Horses, the largest equine rescue group in the South.
Finch guarded his pickup as two fellow activists, lugging cameras and tripods, bushwacked through hackberry trees, past junked cars and into a clearing along the edge of Dallas Crown’s perimeter. John Holland, a computer programmer from Virginia, raised his camcorder just over the top of a metal barricade and stared up at the small video screen. It showed a healthy- looking herd draping heads over a fence. After a few minutes, a worker yelled “Hoy! Hoy! Hoy!” and spooked them into a chute. He whipped a stubborn straggler in the rump. “That’s one smart horse,” Holland said as he zoomed the camera. “I hope he kicks the crap out of that guy.”
The activists were filming Dallas Crown in the hope that the footage would fan public outrage over horse slaughter. If it does, it won’t be the first time that the idea of eating Silver or Mr. Ed has irked the Texan temperament. A nearly forgotten state statute dating to 1949 prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption. In fact, the law gained new prominence in 2002 when attorney general John Cornyn ruled it legal. But last year U.S. District Judge Terry Means found federal law superseded the old slaughter ban. An appeal is pending.
According to court records, the plants last year sold a total of 1,750 tons of meat to U.S. zoos, and exported another 17,000 tons for human consumption.
A campaign to outlaw horse slaughter last year at the federal level was bolstered by polls showing 70 to 90 percent of Americans opposed killing horses for meat. Some congressional offices received more calls in favor of a proposed U.S. slaughter ban than they did regarding the recent Supreme Court nominations or Hurricane Katrina. One Senate office, fielding a call every six minutes, begged a Humane Society lobbyist to ward off the siege. “They couldn’t function,” she says.
Dissecting a slaughtered carcass, again at Florence Packing in Washington. Do the methods used by plants like this former one meet humane standards?
©Gail Eisnitz
A similar upwelling of public support pushed through a 1998 ballot measure banning horse slaughter in California. Dick Schumacher, president of the California Veterinary Medical Association at the time, attributes the move to a shift in public perceptions of horses. “They are now seen less as livestock,” he said, “and more as pets.”
Last year’s national anti-slaughter campaign helped pass a federal spending bill in November that should have already closed the plants, slaughter foes say. H.R. 2744 removed funding for U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA) inspectors who must by law supervise the slaughterhouses. Yet the USDA recently bypassed the roadblock by allowing the plants to continue operating under the watch of inspectors paid with private funds. Last March, a U.S. District Court upheld the decision. The Humane Society is weighing an appeal.
Although they say they have nothing to hide, none of the slaughterhouses have allowed activists or the press inside. E had tentatively set up such a visit, but it was vetoed by the plants’ European owners. “We’re a little concerned about the purpose of someone coming there,” says Dallas Crown attorney Mark Calabria. “If it’s simply to run us down or paint us in a bad light, we don’t really see the need to open the door.”
Finch led his video crew around the plant, past a half dozen snarling, chained rottweilers, to a tangle of pipes and vents. Misters sprayed deodorizer that did little to mask the stink of intestines. From inside a narrow cinderblock structure came an occasional chain rattle, whinny and thud. This was the plant’s “kill room.”
Many horses here suffer horribly painful deaths, Finch believes. A gun with a retractable spike, known as a “captive bolt,” is supposed to fell the animals in one quick jolt to the brain. But two different workers kill horses for the plant on different days and Finch often hears one of them shoot the bolt repeatedly. “The Thursday guy is good,” he said. “The Monday guy is terrible.”
U.S. and European regulations ensure the horses are killed humanely, said Brent Gattis, a spokesperson for the slaughterhouses. “Although I am told by the plants that they haven’t had any problems with ‘missing,’ or however you want to say that, the Europeans require them to have an extra captive bolt at the ready just in case there is a problem,” he says.
Whatever happens inside the plant, there’s little dispute that slaughtering a large animal can be nasty. Angling out of the kill room and over a puddle of blood, a conveyor belt carried a freshly stripped-off horse pelt, turning it over the lip of a dumpster in a bundle of ear, skin and tail. The scene was a stone’s throw from the backyard of a house where children played.
Robert Eldridge, a homeowner who lives downwind of the plant, joined Finch at the fence line. Eldridge and many other residents of the predominately black, Boggy Bottom neighborhood have lived next to the facility since it opened as a cattle slaughterhouse in 1954. Thirty-two years later it was retrofitted to accept horses. A log kept by neighbor Edward Caves, who has since passed away, reported horse parts along the road, green fly infestations in his home and frequently noted, “Had odors for breakfast.”
In 2004, the plant was cited for 31 separate wastewater violations. “These people don’t care about anything but making money,” Eldridge said over the hum of the conveyor belt. “Anybody else is just a piece of trash.”
But even if the plant cleaned up its act, Finch wouldn’t be satisfied. His opposition to the slaughterhouse is grounded in a visceral sense that eating a horse violates a nearly spiritual relationship between man and beast, and that horses and humans have forged a sacred trust based on mutual aid and an intuitive bond. “Horses know us better than we do sometimes,” he says. “They know our feelings, our emotions. So my issue with this whole slaughter thing is: it’s just a deep betrayal by us.”
To the Rescue
Last month, at Finch’s horse rescue headquarters south of Houston, an anonymous tip arrived: a horse in a nearby backyard looked dirty, lethargic and malnourished. A Texas judge issued an order to seize the animal and dispatched a “squad car,” which was followed by Finch and Habitat’s trailer-rigged F-350. The entourage stopped at a cheerful barn painted with a Texas flag. At the back of the lot stood the horse, a 13-hand dun with protruding hip bones and a shaggy coat caked in mud. As Finch approached holding a halter, the gelding (a castrated male horse) bolted for a gate, fell to the ground and shakily lifted himself. Finch wrapped its neck with a lead rope. “They really can’t come any skinnier than this,” said Jennifer Sylvester, who manages Finch’s ranch. “Well, I guess they can, maybe when they’re dead.”
The horse, Shorty, was so skinny that if he’d been taken to a slaughterhouse it would probably refuse him, says Finch. Unloaded at a temporary foster home, Shorty ravenously mouthed up an expensive snack of high-fiber bet pulp and alfalfa cubes, the only thing tolerable by his ingrown teeth and fragile stomach. Finch would soon be granted permanent custody of the horse under Texas animal cruelty law, but already, the price of caring for it was adding up. Rehabilitating Shorty over the next six months would cost more than $3,000. “And if we’re lucky,” says Finch, “we will get $300 out of it in adoption fees.”
Finch’s rescue network includes 168 foster homes spread across three states. It cares for 300 horses at a time, and yet Finch is the first to admit that taking all of the region’s unwanted horses is impossible. For every Shorty that Finch accepts, he has to turn away several perfectly healthy horses that are no longer wanted by their owners.
“We can take care of what we have,” he says, “but we are pretty much maxed out at the ranch.”
America’s bumper crop of equine orphans—a product of over-breeding and fickle hobbyists—is the main reason the American Quarterhorse Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association and even some horse rescue groups don’t oppose the horse slaughterhouses. “I think we have to use a little horse sense,” says Donna Ewing. She’s the 71-year-old founder of the nation’s oldest horse rescue group, the Illinois-based Hooved Animal Humane Society. “Where are they going to get the money to give these animals the quality of life they deserve?”
Even Finch admits that a ban on horse slaughter probably won’t save the lives of every unwanted horse. Instead, it’s likely to force horse owners to pay veterinarians to euthanize them and rendering companies to dispose of them. Finch believes euthanasia is more humane than slaughter, but it’s also more expensive. Vets charge between $75 and $150 to put down a horse. Disposing of the carcass, when it can’t be buried, costs $250 or more. Sending a horse to slaughter nets a horse owner roughly $500 for a mid-sized animal.
Take the slaughter option away, Ewing says, and horse abuse cases such as Shorty’s will spike. Rather than pay to dispose of unwanted horses, some owners will turn them loose in the wild or leave them to die slow, agonizing deaths at pasture.
But despite the logical appeal of the “unwanted horse theory,” as it is sometimes known, it’s thus far unsubstantiated. California, the only major state with a slaughter ban, doesn’t keep stats on horse abuse. The closest thing to a study on the theory was done by Holland, the Virginia computer programmer, who analyzed what happened after a fire idled the horse slaughterhouse in DeKalb for nearly three years.
Accounting for slaughterhouses in Texas and Canada picking up some of the plant’s business, he estimated 50,000 horses were nonetheless saved from slaughter even as horse abuse cases in Illinois declined. Anecdotal reports from California back up Holland’s assertion that the “unwanted horse theory” is a myth. Carolyn Stull, a UC Davis animal welfare expert, found no increase in horse abuse cases since the ban.
Still, the evidence is far from conclusive. Even Holland concedes horse abuse will jump wildly year-to-year based on other factors such as rainfall and temperature. And Stull wonders if California is just outsourcing its problems. The state’s slaughter ban includes few provisions for monitoring what happens to horses after they cross state lines, and no aid for horse care. A recent seizure of more than 600 emaciated mustangs from a ranch overwhelmed the state’s rescue groups, which had to export many of them to already strapped adoption agencies across the U.S.
Ewing fears a national horse slaughter ban will send meat horses on arduous treks to auctions in Canada and Mexico. Stiff horse export fees and inspection requirements—totalling at least $70 per head—will probably significantly limit the practice, but even outspoken slaughter foes say it might sometimes happen.
Ewing counsels caution. “Until we have a better solution,” she says, “I think we’d better pull back, because we are going to cause more cruelty by stopping the slaughterhouses.”
Horses for Sale
Cathleen Haggerty sat in the chipped wooden bleachers of the Great Western Trading Company horse auction in Magnolia, Texas and twisted her hands in agonized speculation over which noble steeds might soon be dinner. A diminutive and wide-eyed horse—Haggerty called it a mustang—bolted into the auction pen and nearly bowled over a teenager. Haggerty glanced at a man in the audience who she called Santa Claus, a horse buyer in a sweat-stained cowboy hat and a bushy white beard, associated in her mind with the St. Nick of coal and switches.
“No one else is going to buy him,” she fretted.
Between machine-gun babble the auctioneer spat quotes like a penny stock ticker. $75, $100, $125. He paused and offered the horse the best compliment he could muster: “Project for somebody.” Haggerty squirmed in her seat. “All in, all done, hundred quarter, hundred half, dickadickadickadeedaa,” he slammed a gavel. “Sell ‘em hundred and a quarter and put him on 3523.”
“He just—shit!—A killer just got him,” Haggerty gasped.
Santa Claus bought the horse for well below 35 cents per pound—the “meat price” offered by the slaughterhouses.
At least 30 mustangs have ended up as slabs of flesh since a new federal law last year began requiring the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to collect wild horses older than 11 years and sell them. Responding to public outrage, the BLM created a contract that is supposed to prohibit buyers from sending the horses to slaughter, at least directly. But mustangs can be difficult to train, says Jill Starr, president of Lifesavers Wild Horse Rescue. “There aren’t places for these horses to go.”
Experience adopting other high-risk horses is similarly mixed. Haggerty, a registered nurse, has spent much of her own time and money rescuing horses that are byproducts of the pharmaceuticals industry. The drug Premarin, used to treat the symptoms of menopause, is produced from the urine of impregnated mares. In 2002, when the drug was found by the National Institutes of Health to cause increased risk of heart disease, breast cancer and other ailments, many stables sold off their stocks of Premarin mares. Overwhelmed rescue groups couldn’t keep them from slaughter. Yet Haggerty thinks the market for the horses has since evolved. “Once the word got out that they can jump and they’re nice riding horses,” she says, “then people decided to bite the bullet and rescue them.”
Racehorse rescue efforts have also seen modest improvements. Spurred by outrage that Ferdinand, winner of the 1986 Kentucky Derby, was most likely slaughtered in Japan in 2002, the New York Racing Association last year created the Ferdinand Fee, an optional donation program to help keep old racehorses alive. Nonetheless, rescue groups estimate up to 6,000 racehorses in the United States are still slaughtered each year; they’re too hot tempered or decrepit to become pleasure horses. “Racing takes its toll on them,” says Diana Pikulski, executive director of the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation. She’s trying to make the Ferdinand Fee mandatory.
Overall, expanded horse rescue efforts are one reason the number of horses slaughtered in the U.S. has fallen sharply since 1990, when more than 300,000 were killed. Another reason is the expiration of Reagan-era tax benefits that encouraged the breeding of thoroughbred horses.
Even so, slaughter menaces some horses that are well-trained and even well-loved by their owners. In 2004, Cimaron, a young Morab gelding owned by 13-year-old Sky Dutchner of upstate New York, was stolen. Months of searching by the watchdog group Stolen Horse International found he’d been shipped north along the so-called “torture trail” to Quebec and slaughtered. Debbie Metcalf, the group’s founder, estimates that 40,000 horses are stolen in the U.S. annually.
“The thieves are looking for somebody to fence them pretty fast,” Metcalf says. Slaughterhouses can be ready buyers, but they’re required by law to check horses against a list of steeds that have been reported stolen. Branding a horse and implanting it with a small tracking microchip drastically improves the chances of recovering it. “It will be awfully hard to remove a microchip,” Metcalf says. “The average thief is not going to do that.”
Many slaughter foes fear kill buyers are outbidding other potential purchasers, making horses worth more in sausages than under saddles. But Haggerty, though anti-slaughter, has attended numerous auctions in Texas and never seen a pleasure horse buyer outbid. In fact, the costs of caring for an equine—at least $3,000 a year—quickly outstrip the purchase price. “If you can’t afford to pay a thousand dollars for a good riding horse, minimum,” Ewing says, “then you cannot afford to keep that horse.”
Still, the path an unwanted horse takes to slaughter is often poorly understood by its original owners. Texas law requires notices at auctions to inform sellers that their horses could be bought for meat. No such sign was visible at the Magnolia auction; owner Don Edwards said no kill buyers work there. He said Santa Claus is a cattle trader. Yet many livestock traders re-sell horses to kill buyers if no other takers bite. The ambiguity of such wheeling and dealing suits many horse owners, who might suspect yet don’t want to know that selling their kid’s old pony is leaving blood on their hands.
Mayor Paula Bacon of Kaufman, home of Dallas Crown: “My community has just been a doormat for this,” she says. “Horse slaughter is not a service; it’s abuse.”
©Josh Harkinson
Finch encourages horse owners who can’t find homes for their animals to simply put them down. “It is very difficult to turn somebody away,” he says, “but I always try to tell people that euthanasia is the best option. Don’t send them to slaughter.”
From the horse’s point of view, however, being sold at the block may turn out better than being “humanely” killed. Even the most tattered Black Beauty dumped at auction has a small chance of finding a loving owner. The slaughterhouses in some ways help keep hope alive for these down-and-out steeds. Knowing the animals can always be sold at a profit for meat enables horse traders to buy them and first shop around elsewhere for higher bidders. Euthanasia, as an alternative, leaves no room for luck except in the afterlife.
Beyond Saving
Suzy’s owners wanted to keep the mare’s newborn foal, but they didn’t want to keep Suzy. By the time she gave birth in August, all four of her hooves had decayed down to her leg bones, a painful condition known as foundering. The owners didn’t want to send the 20-year-old palomino to slaughter, yet didn’t want to pay to put her down. They gave her to Finch. “This was, I think, somewhat of a typical situation,” he says.
Finch’s vet worked on Suzy’s feet for two weeks, but her case was hopeless. So in lieu of treatment Finch plied the ailing horse with apple slices, carrots and peppermint candies. “Why not?” he said. “Spoil ‘em rotten.” Meanwhile, a backhoe dug a ditch. And in the morning, Finch led the limping horse to the edge of her grave.
As usual, Finch encouraged most Habitat for Horses volunteers to stay away. He didn’t want their sobbing to upset the horse. Wielded by his vet, a 14-gauge needle pierced Suzy’s neck and pumped a syringe of Ace through her blood system. The sedative induced sleep. Suzy remained standing, swaying slightly, as Finch rubbed her neck and everyone cried. Then all of them stepped back. The next injection—60 cubic centimeters of sodium pentobarbital—would stop Suzy’s heart. Sometimes horses lunge dangerously as their organs shudder to a halt. Suzy simply keeled over, gasped a few times, and stopped breathing.
The 73 horses put down on Finch’s ranch all died in peaceful surroundings among people who cared for them. Unlike horses that are slaughtered, they were “very, very comfortable,” he says. “There is no terror, no fear.”
But not all veterinarians are so sure. After horses are injected with euthanasia drugs, “there is a period of time when they are going through the process of dying,” says Bill Moyer, head of the large animal department of the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine. “What we don’t know is exactly what is going through their heads at that time.”
Moyer and other vets are most concerned about environmental impacts of euthanasia. Unlike horsemeat from slaughterhouses, which can also be made into dog food, horse carcasses laced with sodium pentobarbital are poisonous. Burying them in some states is illegal. The ambivalence of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) towards the practice is relatively rare. “Most other countries think we are spoiled beyond belief,” Moyer says.
HSUS spokesperson Nancy Perry says horse owners who are concerned about the environmental impacts or cost of chemical euthanasia should, instead of sending a horse to a slaughterhouse, shoot it in the head. “A very well-placed gunshot is the only other acceptable option for them,” she says.
But a blast to the brain with a .45 is essentially the same as the “captive bolt” technology used by the slaughterhouses. Both kill a horse instantly. The American Veterinary Medical Association’s 2002 panel on euthanasia approved the captive bolt method as humane, “if done properly,” said panel chair Bonnie Beaver. And, she adds, the chances of a trained slaughterhouse worker screwing up under the watch of a government inspector and the threat of a fine are probably miniscule compared to the average bubba misfiring his Magnum in a stable.
Still, HSUS has ignored the Cheney factor in favor of calling slaughterhouse kill skills “careless and improper.” The closest thing the group produces to corroborating evidence is a widely circulated 1993 video taken inside a slaughterhouse that shows the thrashing body of a bolted horse. It is almost certainly undergoing a painless nerve reaction, Beaver says, similar to the flapping of a decapitated chicken.
In the end, the best argument against the slaughterhouses is probably their refusal to open their doors to the press. Hardly any unbiased observers have seen them operate. HSUS discounts veterinarians as beholden to livestock and rancher interests. Veterinarians say HSUS is making a big deal out of nothing to raise donations from a gullible public. Ewing of Illinois, one of very few horse rescue people to see the inside of a plant, is despised by much of the rescue community as a Benedict Arnold. “I saw absolutely nothing inhumane about the handling or the killing,” she says.
In fact, Ewing’s biggest concern about horse slaughter isn’t the slaughter itself, but how the horses get to the slaughterhouses. Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, points out that horses are “flight animals,” and when held in confinement for long periods of time suffer much more than similarly transported cows, pigs and chickens. USDA rules permit horses to be shipped for 28 hours straight without nourishment. Yet for healthy privately owned horses—usually towed in much more comfortable trailers—vets recommend offloading for food and water every four hours. Making that kind of requirement for meat horses would probably be so costly that it would end long distance hauling.
Finch hopes such a rule would also end horse slaughter altogether, but Ewing says she has a better idea. Instead of shutting down horse slaughterhouses, she suggests building more of them. Cut down the travel time for horses by building a state-of-the-art, humane slaughterhouse in every large state. The meat sales would pay them off. The service would save horse owners money and probably reduce abuse cases, she believes. Whether worms in the ground or Frenchmen eat the horses doesn’t concern Ewing.
“What happens to their body is OK,” she says. “It’s the soul I worry about. It’s the horse that’s alive that can feel and think. It’s how they are treated then that is important.” But when it comes to horses, the fate of both body and soul remain hotly contested.
JOSH HARKINSON, a former E intern, is a reporter for the Houston Press. This article was prepared in cooperation with that paper, which is running it simultaneously.
Here are a couple additional resources for more information on this issue. Please contact them to see how you can help or for more information. They are also listed at the end of the article:
Habitat for Horses
http://www.habitatforhorses.org/
Phone: (866)HFH-LSER
HSUS
http://www.hsus.org
2100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 452-1100
Article:
The Killing Floor
Three Slaughterhouses Marked the End of the Road for 88,000 American Horses in 2005. But It’s Europeans Who Are Eating the Meat.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3173&src=
by Josh Harkinson
Horses head in for slaughter at the now-shuttered Florence Packing facility in Stanwood, Washington in the early 1990s. There were then 11 horse slaughter plants in the U.S.
©Gail Eisnitz
In the East Texas hamlet of Kaufman last month, a fetid wind ruffled the stripes of the largest American flag in town. It had been a gift to locals from executives of the pungent Dallas Crown slaughterhouse. A few blocks away, company president Michael deBeukelaar stood in City Hall for the Pledge of Allegiance, conspicuously holding his tongue. The Belgian and his foreign bosses were about to learn whether a city commission would force a shutdown of the plant, which had supplied meat to tables in Europe and Japan for more than 20 years. deBeukelaar seemed most concerned with one intractable problem: Americans don’t eat horse.
Clad in a European-cut blazer with felt arm patches, deBeukelaar squared off against a Texan in a Johnny Cash getup of faded black. Houstonian Jerry Finch had for years been a leader in local and national fights to shut down Dallas Crown, Fort Worth-based Beltex Corporation and Cavel International of DeKalb, Illinois, the country’s three horse slaughterhouses, which together killed 88,000 horses last year. Finch traded sharp whispers with a posse of activists. “Nobody wants to recognize horse slaughter for what it is,” he’d said earlier that day. “It’s just murder.”
The commission reached a decision late in the night, unanimously ruling to close the plant by September. An attorney for Dallas Crown pledged to take the battle to court. Finch stepped outside, lit a cigarette and cried. “We did it,” he said as a comrade embraced him. The activists ordered vegetarian pizzas and partied into the morning.
But many other equine enthusiasts around the country weren’t celebrating. Shuttering the slaughterhouses of Texas won’t help horses, they say, and it might just force them someplace worse.
Ill Winds
On a prominent hillock above Kaufman’s main highway, the corrugated metal facade of the Dallas Crown slaughterhouse announced itself without a sign. Its herald was borne on the wind—a simultaneously musky and astringent odor of horse fur, chlorine, feces and blood.
Finch, whose white moustache lightens a red leathery face, lumbered past the plant and down a side street in a jacked-up Dodge Ram that could be straight off any Texas back 40. He grew up in Amarillo, where he worked summers at a riding stable rounding up steeds. “It was just the best damn job in the world,” he says. College led Finch out of the pasture and into a sales job in the Houston suburbs, but not to happiness. In 1995 he retired early, bought a ranch and rekindled his passion for riding animals. He now operates Habitat for Horses, the largest equine rescue group in the South.
Finch guarded his pickup as two fellow activists, lugging cameras and tripods, bushwacked through hackberry trees, past junked cars and into a clearing along the edge of Dallas Crown’s perimeter. John Holland, a computer programmer from Virginia, raised his camcorder just over the top of a metal barricade and stared up at the small video screen. It showed a healthy- looking herd draping heads over a fence. After a few minutes, a worker yelled “Hoy! Hoy! Hoy!” and spooked them into a chute. He whipped a stubborn straggler in the rump. “That’s one smart horse,” Holland said as he zoomed the camera. “I hope he kicks the crap out of that guy.”
The activists were filming Dallas Crown in the hope that the footage would fan public outrage over horse slaughter. If it does, it won’t be the first time that the idea of eating Silver or Mr. Ed has irked the Texan temperament. A nearly forgotten state statute dating to 1949 prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption. In fact, the law gained new prominence in 2002 when attorney general John Cornyn ruled it legal. But last year U.S. District Judge Terry Means found federal law superseded the old slaughter ban. An appeal is pending.
According to court records, the plants last year sold a total of 1,750 tons of meat to U.S. zoos, and exported another 17,000 tons for human consumption.
A campaign to outlaw horse slaughter last year at the federal level was bolstered by polls showing 70 to 90 percent of Americans opposed killing horses for meat. Some congressional offices received more calls in favor of a proposed U.S. slaughter ban than they did regarding the recent Supreme Court nominations or Hurricane Katrina. One Senate office, fielding a call every six minutes, begged a Humane Society lobbyist to ward off the siege. “They couldn’t function,” she says.
Dissecting a slaughtered carcass, again at Florence Packing in Washington. Do the methods used by plants like this former one meet humane standards?
©Gail Eisnitz
A similar upwelling of public support pushed through a 1998 ballot measure banning horse slaughter in California. Dick Schumacher, president of the California Veterinary Medical Association at the time, attributes the move to a shift in public perceptions of horses. “They are now seen less as livestock,” he said, “and more as pets.”
Last year’s national anti-slaughter campaign helped pass a federal spending bill in November that should have already closed the plants, slaughter foes say. H.R. 2744 removed funding for U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA) inspectors who must by law supervise the slaughterhouses. Yet the USDA recently bypassed the roadblock by allowing the plants to continue operating under the watch of inspectors paid with private funds. Last March, a U.S. District Court upheld the decision. The Humane Society is weighing an appeal.
Although they say they have nothing to hide, none of the slaughterhouses have allowed activists or the press inside. E had tentatively set up such a visit, but it was vetoed by the plants’ European owners. “We’re a little concerned about the purpose of someone coming there,” says Dallas Crown attorney Mark Calabria. “If it’s simply to run us down or paint us in a bad light, we don’t really see the need to open the door.”
Finch led his video crew around the plant, past a half dozen snarling, chained rottweilers, to a tangle of pipes and vents. Misters sprayed deodorizer that did little to mask the stink of intestines. From inside a narrow cinderblock structure came an occasional chain rattle, whinny and thud. This was the plant’s “kill room.”
Many horses here suffer horribly painful deaths, Finch believes. A gun with a retractable spike, known as a “captive bolt,” is supposed to fell the animals in one quick jolt to the brain. But two different workers kill horses for the plant on different days and Finch often hears one of them shoot the bolt repeatedly. “The Thursday guy is good,” he said. “The Monday guy is terrible.”
U.S. and European regulations ensure the horses are killed humanely, said Brent Gattis, a spokesperson for the slaughterhouses. “Although I am told by the plants that they haven’t had any problems with ‘missing,’ or however you want to say that, the Europeans require them to have an extra captive bolt at the ready just in case there is a problem,” he says.
Whatever happens inside the plant, there’s little dispute that slaughtering a large animal can be nasty. Angling out of the kill room and over a puddle of blood, a conveyor belt carried a freshly stripped-off horse pelt, turning it over the lip of a dumpster in a bundle of ear, skin and tail. The scene was a stone’s throw from the backyard of a house where children played.
Robert Eldridge, a homeowner who lives downwind of the plant, joined Finch at the fence line. Eldridge and many other residents of the predominately black, Boggy Bottom neighborhood have lived next to the facility since it opened as a cattle slaughterhouse in 1954. Thirty-two years later it was retrofitted to accept horses. A log kept by neighbor Edward Caves, who has since passed away, reported horse parts along the road, green fly infestations in his home and frequently noted, “Had odors for breakfast.”
In 2004, the plant was cited for 31 separate wastewater violations. “These people don’t care about anything but making money,” Eldridge said over the hum of the conveyor belt. “Anybody else is just a piece of trash.”
But even if the plant cleaned up its act, Finch wouldn’t be satisfied. His opposition to the slaughterhouse is grounded in a visceral sense that eating a horse violates a nearly spiritual relationship between man and beast, and that horses and humans have forged a sacred trust based on mutual aid and an intuitive bond. “Horses know us better than we do sometimes,” he says. “They know our feelings, our emotions. So my issue with this whole slaughter thing is: it’s just a deep betrayal by us.”
To the Rescue
Last month, at Finch’s horse rescue headquarters south of Houston, an anonymous tip arrived: a horse in a nearby backyard looked dirty, lethargic and malnourished. A Texas judge issued an order to seize the animal and dispatched a “squad car,” which was followed by Finch and Habitat’s trailer-rigged F-350. The entourage stopped at a cheerful barn painted with a Texas flag. At the back of the lot stood the horse, a 13-hand dun with protruding hip bones and a shaggy coat caked in mud. As Finch approached holding a halter, the gelding (a castrated male horse) bolted for a gate, fell to the ground and shakily lifted himself. Finch wrapped its neck with a lead rope. “They really can’t come any skinnier than this,” said Jennifer Sylvester, who manages Finch’s ranch. “Well, I guess they can, maybe when they’re dead.”
The horse, Shorty, was so skinny that if he’d been taken to a slaughterhouse it would probably refuse him, says Finch. Unloaded at a temporary foster home, Shorty ravenously mouthed up an expensive snack of high-fiber bet pulp and alfalfa cubes, the only thing tolerable by his ingrown teeth and fragile stomach. Finch would soon be granted permanent custody of the horse under Texas animal cruelty law, but already, the price of caring for it was adding up. Rehabilitating Shorty over the next six months would cost more than $3,000. “And if we’re lucky,” says Finch, “we will get $300 out of it in adoption fees.”
Finch’s rescue network includes 168 foster homes spread across three states. It cares for 300 horses at a time, and yet Finch is the first to admit that taking all of the region’s unwanted horses is impossible. For every Shorty that Finch accepts, he has to turn away several perfectly healthy horses that are no longer wanted by their owners.
“We can take care of what we have,” he says, “but we are pretty much maxed out at the ranch.”
America’s bumper crop of equine orphans—a product of over-breeding and fickle hobbyists—is the main reason the American Quarterhorse Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association and even some horse rescue groups don’t oppose the horse slaughterhouses. “I think we have to use a little horse sense,” says Donna Ewing. She’s the 71-year-old founder of the nation’s oldest horse rescue group, the Illinois-based Hooved Animal Humane Society. “Where are they going to get the money to give these animals the quality of life they deserve?”
Even Finch admits that a ban on horse slaughter probably won’t save the lives of every unwanted horse. Instead, it’s likely to force horse owners to pay veterinarians to euthanize them and rendering companies to dispose of them. Finch believes euthanasia is more humane than slaughter, but it’s also more expensive. Vets charge between $75 and $150 to put down a horse. Disposing of the carcass, when it can’t be buried, costs $250 or more. Sending a horse to slaughter nets a horse owner roughly $500 for a mid-sized animal.
Take the slaughter option away, Ewing says, and horse abuse cases such as Shorty’s will spike. Rather than pay to dispose of unwanted horses, some owners will turn them loose in the wild or leave them to die slow, agonizing deaths at pasture.
But despite the logical appeal of the “unwanted horse theory,” as it is sometimes known, it’s thus far unsubstantiated. California, the only major state with a slaughter ban, doesn’t keep stats on horse abuse. The closest thing to a study on the theory was done by Holland, the Virginia computer programmer, who analyzed what happened after a fire idled the horse slaughterhouse in DeKalb for nearly three years.
Accounting for slaughterhouses in Texas and Canada picking up some of the plant’s business, he estimated 50,000 horses were nonetheless saved from slaughter even as horse abuse cases in Illinois declined. Anecdotal reports from California back up Holland’s assertion that the “unwanted horse theory” is a myth. Carolyn Stull, a UC Davis animal welfare expert, found no increase in horse abuse cases since the ban.
Still, the evidence is far from conclusive. Even Holland concedes horse abuse will jump wildly year-to-year based on other factors such as rainfall and temperature. And Stull wonders if California is just outsourcing its problems. The state’s slaughter ban includes few provisions for monitoring what happens to horses after they cross state lines, and no aid for horse care. A recent seizure of more than 600 emaciated mustangs from a ranch overwhelmed the state’s rescue groups, which had to export many of them to already strapped adoption agencies across the U.S.
Ewing fears a national horse slaughter ban will send meat horses on arduous treks to auctions in Canada and Mexico. Stiff horse export fees and inspection requirements—totalling at least $70 per head—will probably significantly limit the practice, but even outspoken slaughter foes say it might sometimes happen.
Ewing counsels caution. “Until we have a better solution,” she says, “I think we’d better pull back, because we are going to cause more cruelty by stopping the slaughterhouses.”
Horses for Sale
Cathleen Haggerty sat in the chipped wooden bleachers of the Great Western Trading Company horse auction in Magnolia, Texas and twisted her hands in agonized speculation over which noble steeds might soon be dinner. A diminutive and wide-eyed horse—Haggerty called it a mustang—bolted into the auction pen and nearly bowled over a teenager. Haggerty glanced at a man in the audience who she called Santa Claus, a horse buyer in a sweat-stained cowboy hat and a bushy white beard, associated in her mind with the St. Nick of coal and switches.
“No one else is going to buy him,” she fretted.
Between machine-gun babble the auctioneer spat quotes like a penny stock ticker. $75, $100, $125. He paused and offered the horse the best compliment he could muster: “Project for somebody.” Haggerty squirmed in her seat. “All in, all done, hundred quarter, hundred half, dickadickadickadeedaa,” he slammed a gavel. “Sell ‘em hundred and a quarter and put him on 3523.”
“He just—shit!—A killer just got him,” Haggerty gasped.
Santa Claus bought the horse for well below 35 cents per pound—the “meat price” offered by the slaughterhouses.
At least 30 mustangs have ended up as slabs of flesh since a new federal law last year began requiring the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to collect wild horses older than 11 years and sell them. Responding to public outrage, the BLM created a contract that is supposed to prohibit buyers from sending the horses to slaughter, at least directly. But mustangs can be difficult to train, says Jill Starr, president of Lifesavers Wild Horse Rescue. “There aren’t places for these horses to go.”
Experience adopting other high-risk horses is similarly mixed. Haggerty, a registered nurse, has spent much of her own time and money rescuing horses that are byproducts of the pharmaceuticals industry. The drug Premarin, used to treat the symptoms of menopause, is produced from the urine of impregnated mares. In 2002, when the drug was found by the National Institutes of Health to cause increased risk of heart disease, breast cancer and other ailments, many stables sold off their stocks of Premarin mares. Overwhelmed rescue groups couldn’t keep them from slaughter. Yet Haggerty thinks the market for the horses has since evolved. “Once the word got out that they can jump and they’re nice riding horses,” she says, “then people decided to bite the bullet and rescue them.”
Racehorse rescue efforts have also seen modest improvements. Spurred by outrage that Ferdinand, winner of the 1986 Kentucky Derby, was most likely slaughtered in Japan in 2002, the New York Racing Association last year created the Ferdinand Fee, an optional donation program to help keep old racehorses alive. Nonetheless, rescue groups estimate up to 6,000 racehorses in the United States are still slaughtered each year; they’re too hot tempered or decrepit to become pleasure horses. “Racing takes its toll on them,” says Diana Pikulski, executive director of the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation. She’s trying to make the Ferdinand Fee mandatory.
Overall, expanded horse rescue efforts are one reason the number of horses slaughtered in the U.S. has fallen sharply since 1990, when more than 300,000 were killed. Another reason is the expiration of Reagan-era tax benefits that encouraged the breeding of thoroughbred horses.
Even so, slaughter menaces some horses that are well-trained and even well-loved by their owners. In 2004, Cimaron, a young Morab gelding owned by 13-year-old Sky Dutchner of upstate New York, was stolen. Months of searching by the watchdog group Stolen Horse International found he’d been shipped north along the so-called “torture trail” to Quebec and slaughtered. Debbie Metcalf, the group’s founder, estimates that 40,000 horses are stolen in the U.S. annually.
“The thieves are looking for somebody to fence them pretty fast,” Metcalf says. Slaughterhouses can be ready buyers, but they’re required by law to check horses against a list of steeds that have been reported stolen. Branding a horse and implanting it with a small tracking microchip drastically improves the chances of recovering it. “It will be awfully hard to remove a microchip,” Metcalf says. “The average thief is not going to do that.”
Many slaughter foes fear kill buyers are outbidding other potential purchasers, making horses worth more in sausages than under saddles. But Haggerty, though anti-slaughter, has attended numerous auctions in Texas and never seen a pleasure horse buyer outbid. In fact, the costs of caring for an equine—at least $3,000 a year—quickly outstrip the purchase price. “If you can’t afford to pay a thousand dollars for a good riding horse, minimum,” Ewing says, “then you cannot afford to keep that horse.”
Still, the path an unwanted horse takes to slaughter is often poorly understood by its original owners. Texas law requires notices at auctions to inform sellers that their horses could be bought for meat. No such sign was visible at the Magnolia auction; owner Don Edwards said no kill buyers work there. He said Santa Claus is a cattle trader. Yet many livestock traders re-sell horses to kill buyers if no other takers bite. The ambiguity of such wheeling and dealing suits many horse owners, who might suspect yet don’t want to know that selling their kid’s old pony is leaving blood on their hands.
Mayor Paula Bacon of Kaufman, home of Dallas Crown: “My community has just been a doormat for this,” she says. “Horse slaughter is not a service; it’s abuse.”
©Josh Harkinson
Finch encourages horse owners who can’t find homes for their animals to simply put them down. “It is very difficult to turn somebody away,” he says, “but I always try to tell people that euthanasia is the best option. Don’t send them to slaughter.”
From the horse’s point of view, however, being sold at the block may turn out better than being “humanely” killed. Even the most tattered Black Beauty dumped at auction has a small chance of finding a loving owner. The slaughterhouses in some ways help keep hope alive for these down-and-out steeds. Knowing the animals can always be sold at a profit for meat enables horse traders to buy them and first shop around elsewhere for higher bidders. Euthanasia, as an alternative, leaves no room for luck except in the afterlife.
Beyond Saving
Suzy’s owners wanted to keep the mare’s newborn foal, but they didn’t want to keep Suzy. By the time she gave birth in August, all four of her hooves had decayed down to her leg bones, a painful condition known as foundering. The owners didn’t want to send the 20-year-old palomino to slaughter, yet didn’t want to pay to put her down. They gave her to Finch. “This was, I think, somewhat of a typical situation,” he says.
Finch’s vet worked on Suzy’s feet for two weeks, but her case was hopeless. So in lieu of treatment Finch plied the ailing horse with apple slices, carrots and peppermint candies. “Why not?” he said. “Spoil ‘em rotten.” Meanwhile, a backhoe dug a ditch. And in the morning, Finch led the limping horse to the edge of her grave.
As usual, Finch encouraged most Habitat for Horses volunteers to stay away. He didn’t want their sobbing to upset the horse. Wielded by his vet, a 14-gauge needle pierced Suzy’s neck and pumped a syringe of Ace through her blood system. The sedative induced sleep. Suzy remained standing, swaying slightly, as Finch rubbed her neck and everyone cried. Then all of them stepped back. The next injection—60 cubic centimeters of sodium pentobarbital—would stop Suzy’s heart. Sometimes horses lunge dangerously as their organs shudder to a halt. Suzy simply keeled over, gasped a few times, and stopped breathing.
The 73 horses put down on Finch’s ranch all died in peaceful surroundings among people who cared for them. Unlike horses that are slaughtered, they were “very, very comfortable,” he says. “There is no terror, no fear.”
But not all veterinarians are so sure. After horses are injected with euthanasia drugs, “there is a period of time when they are going through the process of dying,” says Bill Moyer, head of the large animal department of the Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine. “What we don’t know is exactly what is going through their heads at that time.”
Moyer and other vets are most concerned about environmental impacts of euthanasia. Unlike horsemeat from slaughterhouses, which can also be made into dog food, horse carcasses laced with sodium pentobarbital are poisonous. Burying them in some states is illegal. The ambivalence of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) towards the practice is relatively rare. “Most other countries think we are spoiled beyond belief,” Moyer says.
HSUS spokesperson Nancy Perry says horse owners who are concerned about the environmental impacts or cost of chemical euthanasia should, instead of sending a horse to a slaughterhouse, shoot it in the head. “A very well-placed gunshot is the only other acceptable option for them,” she says.
But a blast to the brain with a .45 is essentially the same as the “captive bolt” technology used by the slaughterhouses. Both kill a horse instantly. The American Veterinary Medical Association’s 2002 panel on euthanasia approved the captive bolt method as humane, “if done properly,” said panel chair Bonnie Beaver. And, she adds, the chances of a trained slaughterhouse worker screwing up under the watch of a government inspector and the threat of a fine are probably miniscule compared to the average bubba misfiring his Magnum in a stable.
Still, HSUS has ignored the Cheney factor in favor of calling slaughterhouse kill skills “careless and improper.” The closest thing the group produces to corroborating evidence is a widely circulated 1993 video taken inside a slaughterhouse that shows the thrashing body of a bolted horse. It is almost certainly undergoing a painless nerve reaction, Beaver says, similar to the flapping of a decapitated chicken.
In the end, the best argument against the slaughterhouses is probably their refusal to open their doors to the press. Hardly any unbiased observers have seen them operate. HSUS discounts veterinarians as beholden to livestock and rancher interests. Veterinarians say HSUS is making a big deal out of nothing to raise donations from a gullible public. Ewing of Illinois, one of very few horse rescue people to see the inside of a plant, is despised by much of the rescue community as a Benedict Arnold. “I saw absolutely nothing inhumane about the handling or the killing,” she says.
In fact, Ewing’s biggest concern about horse slaughter isn’t the slaughter itself, but how the horses get to the slaughterhouses. Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, points out that horses are “flight animals,” and when held in confinement for long periods of time suffer much more than similarly transported cows, pigs and chickens. USDA rules permit horses to be shipped for 28 hours straight without nourishment. Yet for healthy privately owned horses—usually towed in much more comfortable trailers—vets recommend offloading for food and water every four hours. Making that kind of requirement for meat horses would probably be so costly that it would end long distance hauling.
Finch hopes such a rule would also end horse slaughter altogether, but Ewing says she has a better idea. Instead of shutting down horse slaughterhouses, she suggests building more of them. Cut down the travel time for horses by building a state-of-the-art, humane slaughterhouse in every large state. The meat sales would pay them off. The service would save horse owners money and probably reduce abuse cases, she believes. Whether worms in the ground or Frenchmen eat the horses doesn’t concern Ewing.
“What happens to their body is OK,” she says. “It’s the soul I worry about. It’s the horse that’s alive that can feel and think. It’s how they are treated then that is important.” But when it comes to horses, the fate of both body and soul remain hotly contested.
JOSH HARKINSON, a former E intern, is a reporter for the Houston Press. This article was prepared in cooperation with that paper, which is running it simultaneously.
Animal Rights Group Holds Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Personally Responsible for L.A. Zoo Elephant – Gita’s - Death
A good idea since the mayor was aware of the issues that occur when you keep an animal like an elephant in completely inadequate conditions.
As the article states, “Gita suffered from chronic foot problems and arthritis -- the two leading causes of death in captive elephants.”
Essentially, standing on unnaturally hard, non-native surfaces WILL cause problems what will lead to death.
Article:
Animal Rights Group Holds Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Personally Responsible for L.A. Zoo Elephant Death
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060613/latu086.html?.v=57
Tuesday June 13, 12:31 pm ET
LOS ANGELES, June 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Gita, the 48 year old Asian elephant at the LA Zoo, died early Saturday morning as a direct result of keeping her in inadequate conditions at the zoo. Gita suffered from chronic foot problems and arthritis -- the two leading causes of death in captive elephants.
Last Chance for Animals (LCA) is holding Mayor Villaraigosa personally responsible for Gita's death. "Gita is dead because the mayor did not have the strength and conviction to make a compassionate and intelligent decision for the elephants and the people of Los Angeles," stated Chris DeRose, President of LCA. The mayor had the opportunity to veto the LA City Council decision last April to expand the existing elephant exhibit (at a cost of over $38.7 million tax payer dollars) and send the elephants to PAWS sanctuary in Northern California. The Mayor did not veto the decision even though during his election campaign and tenure he had been quoted, "A zoo is not an appropriate place for an animal as large as an elephant ... we need to move the elephants out" NBC News 5.13.05 and "My interest is in ensuring our elephants are healthy and safe and I believe they are safer when they are not in zoos" Daily News 3.11.06.
It is evident that the L.A. Zoo cannot provide the space, exercise or social enrichment needed to preserve the remaining two elephants' health and well being. The elephants are kept in woefully inadequate quarters and are forced to stand on hard surfaces such as concrete or hard-packed earth, the same conditions that caused Gita's ailments and subsequent death. As the world's largest land mammal, elephants in the wild typically walk up to 40 miles per day, socialize in groups of at least 12 members and live to over 70 years of age.
In a city with so many complex needs, the funding necessary (at least $38.7 million) to build the proposed expanded elephant exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo could most certainly find a better use. Given the overwhelming costs associated with holding elephants and the inability to provide adequate living conditions in captivity, zoos across the country have shut down their elephant exhibits. Zoos in large metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago and New York are beginning to understand the needs of elephants are much better met at a sanctuary.
For more information, please visit the fightback4elephants.com or LCAnimal.org or call:
Lisa Beal
Campaigns Department
LCA
Office: 310.271.6096 x27, cell: 818.681.3672
As the article states, “Gita suffered from chronic foot problems and arthritis -- the two leading causes of death in captive elephants.”
Essentially, standing on unnaturally hard, non-native surfaces WILL cause problems what will lead to death.
Article:
Animal Rights Group Holds Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Personally Responsible for L.A. Zoo Elephant Death
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060613/latu086.html?.v=57
Tuesday June 13, 12:31 pm ET
LOS ANGELES, June 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Gita, the 48 year old Asian elephant at the LA Zoo, died early Saturday morning as a direct result of keeping her in inadequate conditions at the zoo. Gita suffered from chronic foot problems and arthritis -- the two leading causes of death in captive elephants.
Last Chance for Animals (LCA) is holding Mayor Villaraigosa personally responsible for Gita's death. "Gita is dead because the mayor did not have the strength and conviction to make a compassionate and intelligent decision for the elephants and the people of Los Angeles," stated Chris DeRose, President of LCA. The mayor had the opportunity to veto the LA City Council decision last April to expand the existing elephant exhibit (at a cost of over $38.7 million tax payer dollars) and send the elephants to PAWS sanctuary in Northern California. The Mayor did not veto the decision even though during his election campaign and tenure he had been quoted, "A zoo is not an appropriate place for an animal as large as an elephant ... we need to move the elephants out" NBC News 5.13.05 and "My interest is in ensuring our elephants are healthy and safe and I believe they are safer when they are not in zoos" Daily News 3.11.06.
It is evident that the L.A. Zoo cannot provide the space, exercise or social enrichment needed to preserve the remaining two elephants' health and well being. The elephants are kept in woefully inadequate quarters and are forced to stand on hard surfaces such as concrete or hard-packed earth, the same conditions that caused Gita's ailments and subsequent death. As the world's largest land mammal, elephants in the wild typically walk up to 40 miles per day, socialize in groups of at least 12 members and live to over 70 years of age.
In a city with so many complex needs, the funding necessary (at least $38.7 million) to build the proposed expanded elephant exhibit at the Los Angeles Zoo could most certainly find a better use. Given the overwhelming costs associated with holding elephants and the inability to provide adequate living conditions in captivity, zoos across the country have shut down their elephant exhibits. Zoos in large metropolitan areas such as San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago and New York are beginning to understand the needs of elephants are much better met at a sanctuary.
For more information, please visit the fightback4elephants.com or LCAnimal.org or call:
Lisa Beal
Campaigns Department
LCA
Office: 310.271.6096 x27, cell: 818.681.3672
A Nice Summation of How Those Pretty Host Finches, Canaries, Mynah Birds and Members of the Parrot Family Get To You: Illegally and/Or Cruelly
Here is a nice summation of how those pretty host finches, canaries, mynah birds and members of the parrot family get to you: “As a business its turnover is claimed to rival illegal drugs and arms, and it devastates swaths of tropical forest, each year claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of exotic wild birds. And, say its opponents, those that do survive the crude techniques employed by the low-paid trappers are forced to endure journeys of thousands of miles crammed in to filthy, overcrowded cages.”
Never thought that those birds came illegally? Well, likely they did. Or, at least they came via cruel means.
Article:
EU urged not to lift its ban on 'cruel' import of wild birds
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article994057.ece
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 14 June 2006
As a business its turnover is claimed to rival illegal drugs and arms, and it devastates swaths of tropical forest, each year claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of exotic wild birds. And, say its opponents, those that do survive the crude techniques employed by the low-paid trappers are forced to endure journeys of thousands of miles crammed in to filthy, overcrowded cages.
Tomorrow in Brussels, vets from the European Union will consider whether to recommend the lifting of the temporary ban on importing wild birds, introduced at the height of last year's scare over avian flu.
A new report by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claims to show that the EU ban has led to the collapse of the trade in wild birds in some parts of the world. It says that captive breeders closer to home have stepped in to fill the void, enjoying rising prices for their stock, and that, far from driving the trade underground, seizures of illegally imported birds have almost ceased.
According to David Bowles, the RSPCA's head of external affairs, the lesson learnt over the past months is simple: "There was this rumour going around that bans don't work. Our work shows that they do and that they are easy to enforce," he said.
Following a similar ban imposed in the United States in 1992, Europe has accounted for 93 per cent of the global avian trade protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) - a total of 2.7 million birds between 2000 and 2003. Britain remains one of the most lucrative markets - it is estimated 1.37 million households host finches, canaries, mynah birds and members of the parrot family - though not all are imported from the wild.
For every 10 birds finally sold, as many as six are thought to have died en route, it is claimed.
"The scale and degree of cruelty in this wasteful trade is wholly unacceptable. Legislation outlaws the capture of wild native birds within the EU. Yet the EU continues to fuel the international trade even though captive bred birds are readily available. Millions of birds have died or suffered as a direct result of these double standards," said Mr Bowles.
The RSPCA sent undercover investigators to Ghana, a country at the heart of the west African export trade. They found that the introduction of the ban had had a minimal effect on the trappers, who tended to use wild birds as a secondary source of income. Many had diversified into other jobs, with some switching to collecting reptiles, another potential wildlife problem.
Research found that the trappers were the lowest paid in the supply chain, with the lion's share going to the retailers in the developed world. In the Chaco region of Argentina, for example, trappers earn just $7 (£4) per bird, birds which sell for $400 in Europe. One example found that the very rarest birds, Spinx's macaw chicks, could command prices up to $40,000.
Trapping techniques include the gluing of birds to branches, netting, lassoing and simply plucking birds from nests or knocking them forcibly into water.
Les Rance, of the Parrot Society UK, said that even though many of his members were against the wild bird trade, African countries relied on it as a legal source of foreign revenue. "The importation is fairly well regulated in this country through customs and Defra. No one wants to be cruel to birds coming into this country, either importers or breeders."
The vets' recommendations will be put to EU ministers in July.
Never thought that those birds came illegally? Well, likely they did. Or, at least they came via cruel means.
Article:
EU urged not to lift its ban on 'cruel' import of wild birds
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article994057.ece
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 14 June 2006
As a business its turnover is claimed to rival illegal drugs and arms, and it devastates swaths of tropical forest, each year claiming the lives of hundreds of thousands of exotic wild birds. And, say its opponents, those that do survive the crude techniques employed by the low-paid trappers are forced to endure journeys of thousands of miles crammed in to filthy, overcrowded cages.
Tomorrow in Brussels, vets from the European Union will consider whether to recommend the lifting of the temporary ban on importing wild birds, introduced at the height of last year's scare over avian flu.
A new report by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claims to show that the EU ban has led to the collapse of the trade in wild birds in some parts of the world. It says that captive breeders closer to home have stepped in to fill the void, enjoying rising prices for their stock, and that, far from driving the trade underground, seizures of illegally imported birds have almost ceased.
According to David Bowles, the RSPCA's head of external affairs, the lesson learnt over the past months is simple: "There was this rumour going around that bans don't work. Our work shows that they do and that they are easy to enforce," he said.
Following a similar ban imposed in the United States in 1992, Europe has accounted for 93 per cent of the global avian trade protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites) - a total of 2.7 million birds between 2000 and 2003. Britain remains one of the most lucrative markets - it is estimated 1.37 million households host finches, canaries, mynah birds and members of the parrot family - though not all are imported from the wild.
For every 10 birds finally sold, as many as six are thought to have died en route, it is claimed.
"The scale and degree of cruelty in this wasteful trade is wholly unacceptable. Legislation outlaws the capture of wild native birds within the EU. Yet the EU continues to fuel the international trade even though captive bred birds are readily available. Millions of birds have died or suffered as a direct result of these double standards," said Mr Bowles.
The RSPCA sent undercover investigators to Ghana, a country at the heart of the west African export trade. They found that the introduction of the ban had had a minimal effect on the trappers, who tended to use wild birds as a secondary source of income. Many had diversified into other jobs, with some switching to collecting reptiles, another potential wildlife problem.
Research found that the trappers were the lowest paid in the supply chain, with the lion's share going to the retailers in the developed world. In the Chaco region of Argentina, for example, trappers earn just $7 (£4) per bird, birds which sell for $400 in Europe. One example found that the very rarest birds, Spinx's macaw chicks, could command prices up to $40,000.
Trapping techniques include the gluing of birds to branches, netting, lassoing and simply plucking birds from nests or knocking them forcibly into water.
Les Rance, of the Parrot Society UK, said that even though many of his members were against the wild bird trade, African countries relied on it as a legal source of foreign revenue. "The importation is fairly well regulated in this country through customs and Defra. No one wants to be cruel to birds coming into this country, either importers or breeders."
The vets' recommendations will be put to EU ministers in July.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Tropical Storm Alberto Makes Landfall / NOLA Pet Evacuation Plan Needs Volunteers
With Alberto’s landfall about 50 miles southeast of Tallahasse, Florida,
hurricane season is officially here! So far an estimated 20,000 people have
evacuated and animal rescue teams are on alert. Fortunately we have Capt.
Ron -- of Humane Law Enforcement-Florida, Disaster Response Teams, and the
Pet Owners Alliance Inc. -- on the Florida front. (See Capt. Ron’s Alberto
report at end of email).
We need to step up the pet evacuation process for vulnerable Gulf Coast
states such as Louisiana. The LA-SPCA is currently working to “fill in the
gaps” with state and federal officials. BUT THEY NEED YOUR HELP.
Volunteers are sought, right now, for NOLA’s pet evacuation plan. We had
posted this alert earlier, but the response has been poor...
If you can help, or can cross-post this to other lists, please do so.
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
Laura Maloney of the LA-SPCA,
Laura@la-spca.org
and
ginger@la-spca.org
504-368-5191, ext. 142
hurricane season is officially here! So far an estimated 20,000 people have
evacuated and animal rescue teams are on alert. Fortunately we have Capt.
Ron -- of Humane Law Enforcement-Florida, Disaster Response Teams, and the
Pet Owners Alliance Inc. -- on the Florida front. (See Capt. Ron’s Alberto
report at end of email).
We need to step up the pet evacuation process for vulnerable Gulf Coast
states such as Louisiana. The LA-SPCA is currently working to “fill in the
gaps” with state and federal officials. BUT THEY NEED YOUR HELP.
Volunteers are sought, right now, for NOLA’s pet evacuation plan. We had
posted this alert earlier, but the response has been poor...
If you can help, or can cross-post this to other lists, please do so.
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
Laura Maloney of the LA-SPCA,
Laura@la-spca.org
and
ginger@la-spca.org
504-368-5191, ext. 142
The National Lawyers Guild Condemns FBI’s Operation Backfire “Green Scare” Tactics as an Unconstitutional Abuse of Authority
Zealous Targeting of Animal and Environmental Activists.
This is an incredible article. It fully exposes the ridiculous extremism exhibited by the FBI and the US government in relation to targeting peaceful animal rights and environmental activists. In summation:
“In 2004, the federal government launched Operation Backfire, a wide-scale investigation of environmental and animal rights activists. It used paid informants and conducted warrantless spying on a range of organizations.”
“[A]n orchestrated campaign of issuing subpoenas to environmental activists, conducting large scale roundups of activists, levying unprecedented penalties for property crimes, and using threats of severe sanctions to leverage fear of conviction and force individuals to turn state’s evidence.”
The National Lawyers Guild sees this program as so ridiculous and extreme that it actually “has established a hotline, 888-NLG-ECOLAW, for individuals arrested or subpoenaed for offenses related to environmental or animal activism. The hotline will be operational on June 26.”
Besides the obvious, the scary thing here is that even with the NLG backing up peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights, the courts are so stacked with political appointments by business-focused politicians that really, in the long run, unless serious changes occur, these actions will be allowed.
Article:
FBI’s Operation Backfire Unconstitutional, Lawyers
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0606/S00307.htm
Wednesday, 14 June 2006, 10:10 pm
Press Release: US National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild Condemns FBI’s Operation Backfire As Unconstitutional
Legal Hotline Available for Activists
Educational Symposium Scheduled for Attorneys and Law Students
New York. The National Lawyers Guild condemns the FBI’s Operation Backfire “green scare” tactics as an unconstitutional abuse of authority. The FBI has engaged in an orchestrated campaign of issuing subpoenas to environmental activists, conducting large scale roundups of activists, levying unprecedented penalties for property crimes, and using threats of severe sanctions to leverage fear of conviction and force individuals to turn state’s evidence.
In 2004, the federal government launched Operation Backfire, a wide-scale investigation of environmental and animal rights activists. It used paid informants and conducted warrantless spying on a range of organizations. Since then, numerous individuals around the country have been arrested and charged with arson, destruction of property and conspiracy in the government’s attempts to target the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Others were subpoenaed to testify before grand juries. Some were charged with the use of “destructive devices,” one count of which carries a mandatory 30-year sentence—two counts call for mandatory life in prison. The government is over-charging people with offenses that carry severe sanctions to force them to accept guilty pleas for a lower sentence or to intimidate them into turning state’s evidence. The National Lawyers Guild believes that the government is misusing destructive device charges and engaging in selection prosecution.
For example, in the SHAC7 (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) case the government in 2004 prosecuted the administrators of a website, charging them with ‘conspiracy’ to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, an industry-specific statute that provides harsher sentences for those protesting animal-related businesses than say those protesting women’s health clinics. The Animal Enterprise Protection Act is a clear violation of the First Amendment, as it makes certain types of political speech illegal. Three of the SHAC7 defendants were found guilty only of conspiracy, a charge that is rarely prosecuted without a substantive offense connected to it.
ADVERTISEMENT
“In the past few years, the Guild has witnessed a disturbing trend of targeting protesters engaged in dissent, and in imposing draconian sentences for expressing such dissent. Life sentences for property damage offenses where the actor has no intent to harm an individual are simply unconstitutional—the punishment does not fit the crime,” said Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild.
The FBI rates ALF and ELF as the number one domestic terrorist threat, calling eco-sabotage the government’s top domestic terrorism priority. The State Department’s definition of terrorism is: "premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants." The expanded definition of domestic terrorism in the Patriot Act punishes a person who commits a dangerous criminal act intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” The Guild is greatly concerned about the use of the word terrorism because it obfuscates issues about the evidence and the ability to fairly evaluate the merits of the case.
The National Lawyers Guild has established a hotline, 888-NLG-ECOLAW, for individuals arrested or subpoenaed for offenses related to environmental or animal activism. The hotline will be operational on June 26. Also on June 26, the Guild will hold a symposium, “The Green Scare: What Lawyers Need to Know,” at Cardozo Law School in New York, New York, at 6:30pm. Speakers include Lauren Regan, founder and executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Oregon; Andrew Erba, attorney for one of the SHAC7 defendants, Brendan Story of Friends and Family of Daniel McGowan, and New York civil rights attorney Daniel Meyers.
This is an incredible article. It fully exposes the ridiculous extremism exhibited by the FBI and the US government in relation to targeting peaceful animal rights and environmental activists. In summation:
“In 2004, the federal government launched Operation Backfire, a wide-scale investigation of environmental and animal rights activists. It used paid informants and conducted warrantless spying on a range of organizations.”
“[A]n orchestrated campaign of issuing subpoenas to environmental activists, conducting large scale roundups of activists, levying unprecedented penalties for property crimes, and using threats of severe sanctions to leverage fear of conviction and force individuals to turn state’s evidence.”
The National Lawyers Guild sees this program as so ridiculous and extreme that it actually “has established a hotline, 888-NLG-ECOLAW, for individuals arrested or subpoenaed for offenses related to environmental or animal activism. The hotline will be operational on June 26.”
Besides the obvious, the scary thing here is that even with the NLG backing up peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights, the courts are so stacked with political appointments by business-focused politicians that really, in the long run, unless serious changes occur, these actions will be allowed.
Article:
FBI’s Operation Backfire Unconstitutional, Lawyers
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0606/S00307.htm
Wednesday, 14 June 2006, 10:10 pm
Press Release: US National Lawyers Guild
National Lawyers Guild Condemns FBI’s Operation Backfire As Unconstitutional
Legal Hotline Available for Activists
Educational Symposium Scheduled for Attorneys and Law Students
New York. The National Lawyers Guild condemns the FBI’s Operation Backfire “green scare” tactics as an unconstitutional abuse of authority. The FBI has engaged in an orchestrated campaign of issuing subpoenas to environmental activists, conducting large scale roundups of activists, levying unprecedented penalties for property crimes, and using threats of severe sanctions to leverage fear of conviction and force individuals to turn state’s evidence.
In 2004, the federal government launched Operation Backfire, a wide-scale investigation of environmental and animal rights activists. It used paid informants and conducted warrantless spying on a range of organizations. Since then, numerous individuals around the country have been arrested and charged with arson, destruction of property and conspiracy in the government’s attempts to target the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Others were subpoenaed to testify before grand juries. Some were charged with the use of “destructive devices,” one count of which carries a mandatory 30-year sentence—two counts call for mandatory life in prison. The government is over-charging people with offenses that carry severe sanctions to force them to accept guilty pleas for a lower sentence or to intimidate them into turning state’s evidence. The National Lawyers Guild believes that the government is misusing destructive device charges and engaging in selection prosecution.
For example, in the SHAC7 (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) case the government in 2004 prosecuted the administrators of a website, charging them with ‘conspiracy’ to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, an industry-specific statute that provides harsher sentences for those protesting animal-related businesses than say those protesting women’s health clinics. The Animal Enterprise Protection Act is a clear violation of the First Amendment, as it makes certain types of political speech illegal. Three of the SHAC7 defendants were found guilty only of conspiracy, a charge that is rarely prosecuted without a substantive offense connected to it.
ADVERTISEMENT
“In the past few years, the Guild has witnessed a disturbing trend of targeting protesters engaged in dissent, and in imposing draconian sentences for expressing such dissent. Life sentences for property damage offenses where the actor has no intent to harm an individual are simply unconstitutional—the punishment does not fit the crime,” said Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild.
The FBI rates ALF and ELF as the number one domestic terrorist threat, calling eco-sabotage the government’s top domestic terrorism priority. The State Department’s definition of terrorism is: "premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants." The expanded definition of domestic terrorism in the Patriot Act punishes a person who commits a dangerous criminal act intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” The Guild is greatly concerned about the use of the word terrorism because it obfuscates issues about the evidence and the ability to fairly evaluate the merits of the case.
The National Lawyers Guild has established a hotline, 888-NLG-ECOLAW, for individuals arrested or subpoenaed for offenses related to environmental or animal activism. The hotline will be operational on June 26. Also on June 26, the Guild will hold a symposium, “The Green Scare: What Lawyers Need to Know,” at Cardozo Law School in New York, New York, at 6:30pm. Speakers include Lauren Regan, founder and executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Oregon; Andrew Erba, attorney for one of the SHAC7 defendants, Brendan Story of Friends and Family of Daniel McGowan, and New York civil rights attorney Daniel Meyers.
The Ugliness and Truth of Horseracing Exposed: Unwanted Ex Racers Will End Up In Horrible Conditions and Auctioned Off For Slaughter
This issue has garnered a lot of attention lately due to the attempt to pass the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. You can read about this act at: http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/federal_legislation
/companion_animals/2005_horse_slaughter.html.
This excellent article exposes the horrible truth of what occurs to retired racers and horses in general. Like we’re so accustomed to doing in this country, if it doesn’t make money, it’s not worth respect. That is the case here, as once loved horses are put into a humiliating and hell full situation.
“The racehorses that wind up at New Holland aren't all lame, or aged, or the byproducts of uninspired breeding. Often, they are horses who consistently run out of the money and whose owners can no longer afford to support them. Horse Illustrated magazine estimates that as many as 90 percent of all racehorses will be slaughtered.”
At the end of the article is a list of some agencies for anyone interested in horse rescue or adoption. After you read this article, those with a heart certainly will have such an interest.
Article:
Awaiting retired racehorses: Salvation - or slaughter
They're unwanted and auctioned off each week.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/14803662.htm
By Frank Fitzpatrick
Inquirer Staff Writer
NEW HOLLAND, Pa. - JJ's Max and dozens of other horses jostled flank to flank in the narrow stable like commuters on a crowded subway.
The 7-year-old standardbred's coat was as dusty as the floor. Three years after his last race, he was thinner than in his harness heyday. And though his left eye was clouded by a vision problem that ended that career, he seemed to see his fate.
His head hung low and unresponsive as Amish children in straw hats and white bonnets paraded past. He didn't react to the nervous whinnies of his companions in this dirty equine green room, or to the hands of the thick-chested men who rudely lifted his leg or yanked back a lip. Occasionally, he shuddered.
Soon, the bay gelding, who had won just 4 of 28 races and $5,666 as a second-rate pacer at Sports Creek Raceway in Flint, Mich., was untied and led next door, into the New Holland Sales Stables Inc. auction ring.
There, in a dung-scented building along Fulton Street in this 278-year-old Lancaster County borough, JJ's Max became part of the weekly New Holland auction, the largest horse sale east of the Mississippi, on June 5.
Ambling down a narrow walkway like some disinterested model, the horse was eyed by hundreds of crusty horsemen and farmers, by equestrian riders and spectators, and by the buyers and sellers who packed the wooden grandstands and narrow walkways for this long-standing Dutch Country ritual.
As horses of all sizes, breeds and ages were marched in and out of the ring, prospective buyers roamed the stables, getting a closer look at the day's later offerings. Men in plaid shirts and baseball caps ate plates of cream chipped beef piled high on homefries as they assessed the horseflesh. Women, many of them Amish, ushered groups of children through the stables, where the youngsters sometimes patted a horse's rump or tried to mount a pony.
This weekly scene, so rich in atmosphere and redolent of America's agricultural traditions, has a dark side as well, one from which, on this day, JJ's Max happily escaped.
Experts say that perhaps as many as 80 of the 400 or so horses auctioned off here each Monday, many of them former racehorses, end up in slaughterhouses, their meat bound for the restaurants of Europe and Asia.
"There are a few fools here who think these horses are going to Old MacDonald's farm," said Pennell Hopkins, an officer with the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who patrols the grounds each week.
According to Animal Welfare League statistics, 17 percent of the more than 80,000 horses slaughtered annually for meat in the United States are thoroughbreds. Standardbreds like JJ's Max, a much smaller percentage of the horse population, probably make up another 2 percent.
But on this cool Monday, JJ's Max, who never had much good fortune on the racetrack, was lucky.
Once he was put on display, an auctioneer bellowed the identification number affixed to the horse's flanks. He briefly described the animal and began to warble for bids that never came.
It was over in 30 seconds.
Unsold, JJ's Max was taken out back of the rickety building. A handler unchained the metal gate to pen 24-A, a dark holding area that's called the "kill-pen" because the next stop for these horses is generally not some sunny pasture.
There, Kelly Young of the Lost and Found Horse Rescue spotted him.
"He looked so sweet," she said.
Young paid his owner $350 and took JJ's Max to the York County farm where her organization has brought hundreds of horses with similar stories. She comes here each week to rescue one or more of the doomed horses, typically former racehorses.
"These horses do a lot for us in their lifetimes," Young said. "They don't deserve to die in the horrible way they do."
The not-so-fortunate horses, bought by anonymous representatives of the slaughterhouses for a few hundred dollars, are hauled to one of the three remaining U.S. facilities - two in Texas, one in Illinois - or to others in Mexico and Canada that help satisfy the growing taste for horsemeat overseas.
Diners in France, Belgium, Japan and elsewhere, unnerved by recent mad-cow-disease scares, are paying as much as $25 a pound. A 1,200-pound animal can produce a sizable profit.
Young, Hopkins and numerous animal-welfare organizations object to the cruel demise of these horses, many of whom are healthy and fit. They often end up slaughtered because they become too expensive to keep once they can't race.
In the slaughterhouses, the horses are packed into a chute and stunned before having their throats slit.
"Horses are high-strung to begin with," said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Animal Welfare League in Washington. "So you can imagine the fear they're experiencing when they're crowded together in these places that smell of blood and feces.
"Then they go through a door into what is essentially a Dumpster," Heyde said. "A man above them has a pneumatic gun with which he fires a bolt the size of a roll of quarters into the horse's brain and then retracts it. The purpose isn't to kill the animal but to render it unresponsive to pain. Sometimes the process has to be repeated four or five times before the horses are bled to death."
Their carcasses, Heyde said, are then frozen and shipped overseas.
Heyde's organization is attempting to shepherd the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act through Congress, where it is stalled in the House's Energy and Commerce Committee.
"I think the overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to horse slaughter. But until we get a law passed, there's not much that can be done beyond trying to rescue as many as possible," he said.
Gretchen Jackson, who owns Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro, has urged action on the measure, HR-503. In a teleconference last week, she said she and her husband cared for eight retired racehorses on their Chester County farm.
"Some are riding horses, and some aren't even up to that, and some are more than 20 years old," she said. "I just felt that when you own and breed a horse that is yours, it's your responsibility to care for that horse."
There have been some positive recent developments in efforts to save racehorses from slaughter. Rescue groups like Young's and the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation are becoming more prevalent. And both the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and the U.S. Trotting Association have been actively supporting these efforts.
"Our biggest [standardbred] adoption group has placed about 2,000 horses since 1990, and we have several other smaller groups that place maybe 10 to 100 each year," said Ellen Harvey, executive director of Harness Racing Communications, a division of the U.S. Trotting Association.
The racehorses that wind up at New Holland aren't all lame, or aged, or the byproducts of uninspired breeding. Often, they are horses who consistently run out of the money and whose owners can no longer afford to support them. Horse Illustrated magazine estimates that as many as 90 percent of all racehorses will be slaughtered.
Among the recognizable thoroughbreds Young has saved here are a half-brother to Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner Charismatic and a 3-year-old son of champion sire Danzig.
"It can happen to any horse," she said. "Look what happened to Ferdinand."
That 1986 Kentucky Derby winner is believed to have perished in a Japanese slaughterhouse. The New York Racing Association recently initiated a Ferdinand Fund. Bettors there can contribute to an organization that cares for retired racehorses.
While the New Holland sale's operators did not want to be interviewed, they are doing nothing illegal. Within the horse industry, theirs is a well-respected and popular auction.
Each week, anywhere from 250 to 450 horses are sold there, everything from tiny ponies to massive Clydesdales to over-the-hill thoroughbreds.
Most buyers will use the horses for simple tasks - pulling Amish buggies, pony rides, equestrian lessons. The prices they fetched on June 5 ranged from $270 to $1,850.
It's the bargains that most concern Young.
"When you see a horse go for just a few hundred dollars," she said, "there's a good chance it's going to end up in the kill-pen."
The gruesome end many of these horses are destined to meet contrasts starkly with the carnival-like atmosphere outside the auction ring here.
By 8 a.m. last Monday, the large parking lots were humming with activity.
Dozens of pickup trucks laden with straw bales, stacked like blocks on a child's wagon, lined up for a hay auction. Another area was dominated by large horse trailers, which came from as far away as Wyoming and as near as Kennett Square and Malvern.
Elsewhere, at a colorful flea market, merchants sold copies of posters promoting a 1956 Elvis Presley concert, handsome leather saddles and other tack, used sweatshirts and corn dogs.
Inside the auction's main building, a snack bar dispensed sweet bologna-and-swiss cheese platters, $1.50 root-beer floats and the popular chipped-beef plates.
"It's quite an interesting place, it really is," said Hopkins, who colleagues say often is harassed by the sellers and buyers. "But you'll also see horses that have been abused, horses that have an eye hanging out of their heads, things like that.
"It can be a place of horrors, too."
Adopt a Horse
Here are some agencies for anyone interested in horse rescue or adoption:
Thoroughbreds:Re Run. Web site is www.rerun.org.
Contact Laurie Lane
at 732-521-1370.
Canter: Web site is www.canterusa.org.
Contact Allie Conrad
at 301-980-0972.
Standardbreds: Standardbred Retirement Foundation. Web site is www.adoptahorse.org.
Contact Gen Sullivan
at 732-462-8773.
All breeds and ponies:
Lost and Found Horse Rescue. Web site is
www.lfhr.org.
Contact Kelly Young
at 717-428-9701.
Horse Lovers United.
Web site is http://www.horseloversunited.com. Contact Lorraine Truitt at 410-749-3599.
Equine Protection Network:
Web site is http://equineprotection network.com.
/companion_animals/2005_horse_slaughter.html.
This excellent article exposes the horrible truth of what occurs to retired racers and horses in general. Like we’re so accustomed to doing in this country, if it doesn’t make money, it’s not worth respect. That is the case here, as once loved horses are put into a humiliating and hell full situation.
“The racehorses that wind up at New Holland aren't all lame, or aged, or the byproducts of uninspired breeding. Often, they are horses who consistently run out of the money and whose owners can no longer afford to support them. Horse Illustrated magazine estimates that as many as 90 percent of all racehorses will be slaughtered.”
At the end of the article is a list of some agencies for anyone interested in horse rescue or adoption. After you read this article, those with a heart certainly will have such an interest.
Article:
Awaiting retired racehorses: Salvation - or slaughter
They're unwanted and auctioned off each week.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/14803662.htm
By Frank Fitzpatrick
Inquirer Staff Writer
NEW HOLLAND, Pa. - JJ's Max and dozens of other horses jostled flank to flank in the narrow stable like commuters on a crowded subway.
The 7-year-old standardbred's coat was as dusty as the floor. Three years after his last race, he was thinner than in his harness heyday. And though his left eye was clouded by a vision problem that ended that career, he seemed to see his fate.
His head hung low and unresponsive as Amish children in straw hats and white bonnets paraded past. He didn't react to the nervous whinnies of his companions in this dirty equine green room, or to the hands of the thick-chested men who rudely lifted his leg or yanked back a lip. Occasionally, he shuddered.
Soon, the bay gelding, who had won just 4 of 28 races and $5,666 as a second-rate pacer at Sports Creek Raceway in Flint, Mich., was untied and led next door, into the New Holland Sales Stables Inc. auction ring.
There, in a dung-scented building along Fulton Street in this 278-year-old Lancaster County borough, JJ's Max became part of the weekly New Holland auction, the largest horse sale east of the Mississippi, on June 5.
Ambling down a narrow walkway like some disinterested model, the horse was eyed by hundreds of crusty horsemen and farmers, by equestrian riders and spectators, and by the buyers and sellers who packed the wooden grandstands and narrow walkways for this long-standing Dutch Country ritual.
As horses of all sizes, breeds and ages were marched in and out of the ring, prospective buyers roamed the stables, getting a closer look at the day's later offerings. Men in plaid shirts and baseball caps ate plates of cream chipped beef piled high on homefries as they assessed the horseflesh. Women, many of them Amish, ushered groups of children through the stables, where the youngsters sometimes patted a horse's rump or tried to mount a pony.
This weekly scene, so rich in atmosphere and redolent of America's agricultural traditions, has a dark side as well, one from which, on this day, JJ's Max happily escaped.
Experts say that perhaps as many as 80 of the 400 or so horses auctioned off here each Monday, many of them former racehorses, end up in slaughterhouses, their meat bound for the restaurants of Europe and Asia.
"There are a few fools here who think these horses are going to Old MacDonald's farm," said Pennell Hopkins, an officer with the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who patrols the grounds each week.
According to Animal Welfare League statistics, 17 percent of the more than 80,000 horses slaughtered annually for meat in the United States are thoroughbreds. Standardbreds like JJ's Max, a much smaller percentage of the horse population, probably make up another 2 percent.
But on this cool Monday, JJ's Max, who never had much good fortune on the racetrack, was lucky.
Once he was put on display, an auctioneer bellowed the identification number affixed to the horse's flanks. He briefly described the animal and began to warble for bids that never came.
It was over in 30 seconds.
Unsold, JJ's Max was taken out back of the rickety building. A handler unchained the metal gate to pen 24-A, a dark holding area that's called the "kill-pen" because the next stop for these horses is generally not some sunny pasture.
There, Kelly Young of the Lost and Found Horse Rescue spotted him.
"He looked so sweet," she said.
Young paid his owner $350 and took JJ's Max to the York County farm where her organization has brought hundreds of horses with similar stories. She comes here each week to rescue one or more of the doomed horses, typically former racehorses.
"These horses do a lot for us in their lifetimes," Young said. "They don't deserve to die in the horrible way they do."
The not-so-fortunate horses, bought by anonymous representatives of the slaughterhouses for a few hundred dollars, are hauled to one of the three remaining U.S. facilities - two in Texas, one in Illinois - or to others in Mexico and Canada that help satisfy the growing taste for horsemeat overseas.
Diners in France, Belgium, Japan and elsewhere, unnerved by recent mad-cow-disease scares, are paying as much as $25 a pound. A 1,200-pound animal can produce a sizable profit.
Young, Hopkins and numerous animal-welfare organizations object to the cruel demise of these horses, many of whom are healthy and fit. They often end up slaughtered because they become too expensive to keep once they can't race.
In the slaughterhouses, the horses are packed into a chute and stunned before having their throats slit.
"Horses are high-strung to begin with," said Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Animal Welfare League in Washington. "So you can imagine the fear they're experiencing when they're crowded together in these places that smell of blood and feces.
"Then they go through a door into what is essentially a Dumpster," Heyde said. "A man above them has a pneumatic gun with which he fires a bolt the size of a roll of quarters into the horse's brain and then retracts it. The purpose isn't to kill the animal but to render it unresponsive to pain. Sometimes the process has to be repeated four or five times before the horses are bled to death."
Their carcasses, Heyde said, are then frozen and shipped overseas.
Heyde's organization is attempting to shepherd the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act through Congress, where it is stalled in the House's Energy and Commerce Committee.
"I think the overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to horse slaughter. But until we get a law passed, there's not much that can be done beyond trying to rescue as many as possible," he said.
Gretchen Jackson, who owns Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro, has urged action on the measure, HR-503. In a teleconference last week, she said she and her husband cared for eight retired racehorses on their Chester County farm.
"Some are riding horses, and some aren't even up to that, and some are more than 20 years old," she said. "I just felt that when you own and breed a horse that is yours, it's your responsibility to care for that horse."
There have been some positive recent developments in efforts to save racehorses from slaughter. Rescue groups like Young's and the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation are becoming more prevalent. And both the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and the U.S. Trotting Association have been actively supporting these efforts.
"Our biggest [standardbred] adoption group has placed about 2,000 horses since 1990, and we have several other smaller groups that place maybe 10 to 100 each year," said Ellen Harvey, executive director of Harness Racing Communications, a division of the U.S. Trotting Association.
The racehorses that wind up at New Holland aren't all lame, or aged, or the byproducts of uninspired breeding. Often, they are horses who consistently run out of the money and whose owners can no longer afford to support them. Horse Illustrated magazine estimates that as many as 90 percent of all racehorses will be slaughtered.
Among the recognizable thoroughbreds Young has saved here are a half-brother to Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner Charismatic and a 3-year-old son of champion sire Danzig.
"It can happen to any horse," she said. "Look what happened to Ferdinand."
That 1986 Kentucky Derby winner is believed to have perished in a Japanese slaughterhouse. The New York Racing Association recently initiated a Ferdinand Fund. Bettors there can contribute to an organization that cares for retired racehorses.
While the New Holland sale's operators did not want to be interviewed, they are doing nothing illegal. Within the horse industry, theirs is a well-respected and popular auction.
Each week, anywhere from 250 to 450 horses are sold there, everything from tiny ponies to massive Clydesdales to over-the-hill thoroughbreds.
Most buyers will use the horses for simple tasks - pulling Amish buggies, pony rides, equestrian lessons. The prices they fetched on June 5 ranged from $270 to $1,850.
It's the bargains that most concern Young.
"When you see a horse go for just a few hundred dollars," she said, "there's a good chance it's going to end up in the kill-pen."
The gruesome end many of these horses are destined to meet contrasts starkly with the carnival-like atmosphere outside the auction ring here.
By 8 a.m. last Monday, the large parking lots were humming with activity.
Dozens of pickup trucks laden with straw bales, stacked like blocks on a child's wagon, lined up for a hay auction. Another area was dominated by large horse trailers, which came from as far away as Wyoming and as near as Kennett Square and Malvern.
Elsewhere, at a colorful flea market, merchants sold copies of posters promoting a 1956 Elvis Presley concert, handsome leather saddles and other tack, used sweatshirts and corn dogs.
Inside the auction's main building, a snack bar dispensed sweet bologna-and-swiss cheese platters, $1.50 root-beer floats and the popular chipped-beef plates.
"It's quite an interesting place, it really is," said Hopkins, who colleagues say often is harassed by the sellers and buyers. "But you'll also see horses that have been abused, horses that have an eye hanging out of their heads, things like that.
"It can be a place of horrors, too."
Adopt a Horse
Here are some agencies for anyone interested in horse rescue or adoption:
Thoroughbreds:Re Run. Web site is www.rerun.org.
Contact Laurie Lane
at 732-521-1370.
Canter: Web site is www.canterusa.org.
Contact Allie Conrad
at 301-980-0972.
Standardbreds: Standardbred Retirement Foundation. Web site is www.adoptahorse.org.
Contact Gen Sullivan
at 732-462-8773.
All breeds and ponies:
Lost and Found Horse Rescue. Web site is
www.lfhr.org.
Contact Kelly Young
at 717-428-9701.
Horse Lovers United.
Web site is http://www.horseloversunited.com. Contact Lorraine Truitt at 410-749-3599.
Equine Protection Network:
Web site is http://equineprotection network.com.
On Eve of International Whaling Commission Meeting Undercover Footage Is Released Which Proves That There Is No Humane Way to Kill a Whale At Sea
An excellent article that exposes not only the truth of whaling, but of the political backslapping that occurs to allow such inhumane and unnecessary killing to occur.
As far as I know, the footage has not been publicly released yet, but in summation:
“The footage, filmed by investigators from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), shows a Norwegian whaling ship firing a grenade-tipped harpoon into a minke whale. Despite the hunt taking place in perfect conditions, the whale takes some two-and-a-half minutes to die.”
So, this contradicts pro whaling countries like Japan and Norway and exposes the lies they use to justify their desires to kill whales.
Article:
New footage fuels argument of anti-whaling lobby
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0606/S00119.htm
Tuesday, 13 June 2006, 12:28 pm
Press Release: World Society for Animals
New footage fuels welfare argument of anti-whaling lobby
As pro and anti-whalers meet in St Kitts to debate whale killing methods, new undercover footage is released which proves that there is no humane way to kill a whale at sea - even in optimum weather conditions.
The footage, filmed by investigators from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), shows a Norwegian whaling ship firing a grenade-tipped harpoon into a minke whale. Despite the hunt taking place in perfect conditions, the whale takes some two-and-a-half minutes to die.
The whaling vessel, 'Brandsholmben' was filmed by investigators just off the coast of Hamningberg, Norway, last month, as it pursued the whale for 25 minutes before firing at it. Accompanying the hunted whale was another whale, which made a narrow escape. This is unusual for minke whales as they are usually solitary animals except during breeding or when with a calf. It is not known what the relationship between these two whales was.
This timely release coincides with a technical workshop on whale killing methods and associated welfare issues which takes place before the opening of the 2006 meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in St Kitts.
Commenting on the footage, Leah Garcs, WSPA's Director of Campaigns, said: "Despite this hunt taking place in optimum weather conditions, the kill is not instantaneous. This would not be an acceptable 'time to death' for a farm animal, so why should it be permitted for whale? Clearly, on cruelty grounds alone, all commercial and scientific whaling should cease."
EIA spokesperson Jennifer Lonsdale, added: "This investigation once again exposes the cruelty of modern day whaling, where an animal suffers being hunted and killed by an inaccurate shot from a moving vessel. A number of uncontrollable factors such as visibility, sea conditions, speed, and gunner accuracy prevent a guaranteed lethal shot. There is simply no humane way to kill a whale at sea."
This year there is a real fear that pro-whaling nations have gathered enough support within the IWC to overturn some vital and long standing conservation and welfare measures. WSPA and EIA are members of Whalewatch, a coalition of over 140 non-governmental organisations, that campaigns to stop the unnecessary and inhumane practice of commercial and 'scientific' whaling.
Whalers will kill approximately 2,000 whales this year, taking the total death toll to over 25,000 since the ban on commercial whaling came into force in 1986.
As far as I know, the footage has not been publicly released yet, but in summation:
“The footage, filmed by investigators from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), shows a Norwegian whaling ship firing a grenade-tipped harpoon into a minke whale. Despite the hunt taking place in perfect conditions, the whale takes some two-and-a-half minutes to die.”
So, this contradicts pro whaling countries like Japan and Norway and exposes the lies they use to justify their desires to kill whales.
Article:
New footage fuels argument of anti-whaling lobby
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0606/S00119.htm
Tuesday, 13 June 2006, 12:28 pm
Press Release: World Society for Animals
New footage fuels welfare argument of anti-whaling lobby
As pro and anti-whalers meet in St Kitts to debate whale killing methods, new undercover footage is released which proves that there is no humane way to kill a whale at sea - even in optimum weather conditions.
The footage, filmed by investigators from the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), shows a Norwegian whaling ship firing a grenade-tipped harpoon into a minke whale. Despite the hunt taking place in perfect conditions, the whale takes some two-and-a-half minutes to die.
The whaling vessel, 'Brandsholmben' was filmed by investigators just off the coast of Hamningberg, Norway, last month, as it pursued the whale for 25 minutes before firing at it. Accompanying the hunted whale was another whale, which made a narrow escape. This is unusual for minke whales as they are usually solitary animals except during breeding or when with a calf. It is not known what the relationship between these two whales was.
This timely release coincides with a technical workshop on whale killing methods and associated welfare issues which takes place before the opening of the 2006 meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in St Kitts.
Commenting on the footage, Leah Garcs, WSPA's Director of Campaigns, said: "Despite this hunt taking place in optimum weather conditions, the kill is not instantaneous. This would not be an acceptable 'time to death' for a farm animal, so why should it be permitted for whale? Clearly, on cruelty grounds alone, all commercial and scientific whaling should cease."
EIA spokesperson Jennifer Lonsdale, added: "This investigation once again exposes the cruelty of modern day whaling, where an animal suffers being hunted and killed by an inaccurate shot from a moving vessel. A number of uncontrollable factors such as visibility, sea conditions, speed, and gunner accuracy prevent a guaranteed lethal shot. There is simply no humane way to kill a whale at sea."
This year there is a real fear that pro-whaling nations have gathered enough support within the IWC to overturn some vital and long standing conservation and welfare measures. WSPA and EIA are members of Whalewatch, a coalition of over 140 non-governmental organisations, that campaigns to stop the unnecessary and inhumane practice of commercial and 'scientific' whaling.
Whalers will kill approximately 2,000 whales this year, taking the total death toll to over 25,000 since the ban on commercial whaling came into force in 1986.
Teen Girls Who Filmed Themselves on MySpace.Com Kicking Cat Wrapped in Plastic Around a Room Face Weak Misdemeanor Charge
How weak of a charge for two sick girls who are showing signs of future abuse towards even humans. As the article says, their crime is only related to a misdemeanor charge, and that is IF they were adults.
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
Article:
Teenagers face sentencing for kicking wrapped cat
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20060614/NEWS01/606140360/1006/NEWS01
Two teenage girls charged with cruelty to an animal face sentencing Aug. 1 in Marion Superior Court after a fact-finding hearing Tuesday.
The Marion County girls, both 14, were charged after an animal-rights group told authorities the girls had posted on the popular Web site MySpace.com a video of themselves kicking a cat wrapped in plastic.
Authorities were alerted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The almost two-minute video showed the girls dropping, shoving and kicking the plastic-wrapped cat, named Stump, around a room, making comments such as "How does it feel?"
The 19-pound cat was removed from its home, but a judicial officer later ordered its return.
Authorities have withheld the girls' names because the animal cruelty charge they face would be a misdemeanor if it had involved an adult.
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
Article:
Teenagers face sentencing for kicking wrapped cat
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20060614/NEWS01/606140360/1006/NEWS01
Two teenage girls charged with cruelty to an animal face sentencing Aug. 1 in Marion Superior Court after a fact-finding hearing Tuesday.
The Marion County girls, both 14, were charged after an animal-rights group told authorities the girls had posted on the popular Web site MySpace.com a video of themselves kicking a cat wrapped in plastic.
Authorities were alerted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The almost two-minute video showed the girls dropping, shoving and kicking the plastic-wrapped cat, named Stump, around a room, making comments such as "How does it feel?"
The 19-pound cat was removed from its home, but a judicial officer later ordered its return.
Authorities have withheld the girls' names because the animal cruelty charge they face would be a misdemeanor if it had involved an adult.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Due to Japan’s Sneaky Tactics, Pro-Whaling Nations May Hold the Majority of Votes at the Next International Whaling Commission Meeting
Not good at all. Looks like whaling will now begin in full action again. The link below will take you to a page that offers video of a whale being murdered.
Article:
Japan rallying pro-whaling nations
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/748892
Jun 13, 2006
New Zealand Conservation Minister Chris Carter says it appears pro-whaling nations may hold the majority of votes at the next International Whaling Commission meeting.
Carter says the meeting, which starts on Friday, will be crucial to the future of the world's whale population.
He says delegations from "conservation-minded" countries such as New Zealand will do their utmost to keep whale conservation at the forefront of the IWC's work.
But Carter says Japan has been actively recruiting countries which will support whaling to join the commission and at this stage, appears to have the votes on its side.
The meeting comes as animal rights organisation WSPA says new undercover footage has been released, which proves there is not a humane way to kill a whale.
WSPA says the footage shows a minke whale being shot with a grenade-tipped harpoon and despite the hunt taking place in optimum weather conditions the whale takes two and a half minutes to die.
Article:
Japan rallying pro-whaling nations
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425825/748892
Jun 13, 2006
New Zealand Conservation Minister Chris Carter says it appears pro-whaling nations may hold the majority of votes at the next International Whaling Commission meeting.
Carter says the meeting, which starts on Friday, will be crucial to the future of the world's whale population.
He says delegations from "conservation-minded" countries such as New Zealand will do their utmost to keep whale conservation at the forefront of the IWC's work.
But Carter says Japan has been actively recruiting countries which will support whaling to join the commission and at this stage, appears to have the votes on its side.
The meeting comes as animal rights organisation WSPA says new undercover footage has been released, which proves there is not a humane way to kill a whale.
WSPA says the footage shows a minke whale being shot with a grenade-tipped harpoon and despite the hunt taking place in optimum weather conditions the whale takes two and a half minutes to die.
The Hain Celestial Group Acquires the Assets of the Linda McCartney Brand Products and Meat-Free Business
I’d have to say that Hain Celestial is better than H.J. Heinz, but it still has it’s issues. Out in Colorado alone, it is responsible for a massive Prairie Dog poisinign at the Celestial Seasnonins complex. Not a very animal or environmental-friendly step from a compmany that claims to care.
Press Release:
The Hain Celestial Group Acquires the Assets of the Linda McCartney(R) Brand Products and Meat-Free Business
http://finance.yahoo.com/
Tuesday June 13, 7:00 am ET
MELVILLE, N.Y., June 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HAIN - News) today announced the acquisition of the Linda McCartney® brand (under license) frozen meat-free business from the H. J. Heinz Company, including the manufacturing facility based in Fakenham, England. A pioneer and leader in the meat-free category with its range of sausages, ready meals, and pastry products, the Linda McCartney range is recognized for its vegetarian credentials while providing healthy and tasty meal solutions.
"We now have the premier meat-free brand which will further support our expansion of natural and organic products. Acquiring the Linda McCartney range of vegetarian products reinforces our commitment to growing in this marketplace," said Irwin D. Simon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Hain Celestial Group. "We are excited to have the opportunity to work with The McCartney Family in expanding the Linda McCartney frozen meat-free business in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe as well as throughout North America."
In a statement released by the McCartney Family, they commented, "We are delighted to be joining together with Hain Celestial, a leading light in organic, natural products, to produce an even better range of foods than we have ever made before. We believe that the visions of both our companies fit perfectly with our desire to encourage more and more people to eat pure, vegetarian food. It was this desire that motivated Linda when she started Linda McCartney Foods originally and we hope to continue her good work and in doing so, her legacy."
Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. The transaction is expected to be accretive to the earnings of Hain Celestial during its fiscal year 2007. In May Hain Celestial announced the acquisition of the Fresh Prepared Foods Business in Luton, England from Heinz. Hain Celestial has built a European presence with its natural and organic brands including Celestial Seasonings®, Terra Chips®, Soy Dream®, Rice Dream®, Natumi®, Lima®, Grains Noirs® and Biomarche(TM), and is committed to creating and promoting A Healthy Way of Life(TM).
The Linda McCartney brand is licensed under an agreement with Linda Enterprises Limited.
The Hain Celestial Group
The Hain Celestial Group (Nasdaq: HAIN - News), headquartered in Melville, NY, is a leading natural and organic food and personal care products company in North America and Europe. Hain Celestial participates in almost all natural food categories with well-known brands that include Celestial Seasonings®, Terra Chips®, Garden of Eatin'®, Health Valley®, WestSoy®, Earth's Best®, Arrowhead Mills®, DeBoles®, Hain Pure Foods®, FreeBird(TM), Hollywood®, Spectrum Naturals®, Spectrum Essentials®, Walnut Acres Organic(TM), Imagine Foods®, Rice Dream®, Soy Dream®, Rosetto®, Ethnic Gourmet®, Yves Veggie Cuisine®, Lima®, Biomarche(TM), Grains Noirs®, Natumi®, JASON®, Zia® Natural Skincare, Queen Helene®, Batherapy® and Footherapy®. For more information, visit http://www.hain-celestial.com .
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements within and constitutes a "Safe Harbor" statement under the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this press release are forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause our actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward- looking statements. These risks include but are not limited to general economic and business conditions; the ability to implement business and acquisition strategies and integrate acquisitions; competition; retention of key personnel; compliance with government regulations and other risks detailed from time-to-time in the Company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The forward-looking statements made in this press release are current as of the date of this press release, and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements.
Press Release:
The Hain Celestial Group Acquires the Assets of the Linda McCartney(R) Brand Products and Meat-Free Business
http://finance.yahoo.com/
Tuesday June 13, 7:00 am ET
MELVILLE, N.Y., June 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HAIN - News) today announced the acquisition of the Linda McCartney® brand (under license) frozen meat-free business from the H. J. Heinz Company, including the manufacturing facility based in Fakenham, England. A pioneer and leader in the meat-free category with its range of sausages, ready meals, and pastry products, the Linda McCartney range is recognized for its vegetarian credentials while providing healthy and tasty meal solutions.
"We now have the premier meat-free brand which will further support our expansion of natural and organic products. Acquiring the Linda McCartney range of vegetarian products reinforces our commitment to growing in this marketplace," said Irwin D. Simon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Hain Celestial Group. "We are excited to have the opportunity to work with The McCartney Family in expanding the Linda McCartney frozen meat-free business in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe as well as throughout North America."
In a statement released by the McCartney Family, they commented, "We are delighted to be joining together with Hain Celestial, a leading light in organic, natural products, to produce an even better range of foods than we have ever made before. We believe that the visions of both our companies fit perfectly with our desire to encourage more and more people to eat pure, vegetarian food. It was this desire that motivated Linda when she started Linda McCartney Foods originally and we hope to continue her good work and in doing so, her legacy."
Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. The transaction is expected to be accretive to the earnings of Hain Celestial during its fiscal year 2007. In May Hain Celestial announced the acquisition of the Fresh Prepared Foods Business in Luton, England from Heinz. Hain Celestial has built a European presence with its natural and organic brands including Celestial Seasonings®, Terra Chips®, Soy Dream®, Rice Dream®, Natumi®, Lima®, Grains Noirs® and Biomarche(TM), and is committed to creating and promoting A Healthy Way of Life(TM).
The Linda McCartney brand is licensed under an agreement with Linda Enterprises Limited.
The Hain Celestial Group
The Hain Celestial Group (Nasdaq: HAIN - News), headquartered in Melville, NY, is a leading natural and organic food and personal care products company in North America and Europe. Hain Celestial participates in almost all natural food categories with well-known brands that include Celestial Seasonings®, Terra Chips®, Garden of Eatin'®, Health Valley®, WestSoy®, Earth's Best®, Arrowhead Mills®, DeBoles®, Hain Pure Foods®, FreeBird(TM), Hollywood®, Spectrum Naturals®, Spectrum Essentials®, Walnut Acres Organic(TM), Imagine Foods®, Rice Dream®, Soy Dream®, Rosetto®, Ethnic Gourmet®, Yves Veggie Cuisine®, Lima®, Biomarche(TM), Grains Noirs®, Natumi®, JASON®, Zia® Natural Skincare, Queen Helene®, Batherapy® and Footherapy®. For more information, visit http://www.hain-celestial.com .
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements within and constitutes a "Safe Harbor" statement under the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. Except for the historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this press release are forward-looking statements that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause our actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward- looking statements. These risks include but are not limited to general economic and business conditions; the ability to implement business and acquisition strategies and integrate acquisitions; competition; retention of key personnel; compliance with government regulations and other risks detailed from time-to-time in the Company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The forward-looking statements made in this press release are current as of the date of this press release, and the Company does not undertake any obligation to update forward-looking statements.
Group Urges India's Fruit Exporters to Donate Mangoes as a Small Measure of Comfort to the Indian Macaques Used In Experiments in Covance Facilities
You’ll see below the horror that the company Covance puts primates through. Truly a sick group.
It's also good to note that "Covance also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals. It is the single largest importer of primates in the US and the world's largest breeder of laboratory dogs."
Article:
Donate mangoes to 'research' monkeys: animal rights group
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/33503.php/Donate_mangoes_
to_research_monkeys:_animal_rights_group
By Indo Asian News Service
New Delhi, June 12 (IANS) An animal rights group has urged India's top fruit exporters to donate mangoes as a small measure of comfort to the many Indian macaques used in experiments in various facilities operated by one of the world's largest animal-testing laboratories Covance.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), in a letter sent to exporters in eight cities across the country, has pointed out that because the macaques are kept in small, barren cages where they suffer from deprivation and loneliness, a meal of mangoes would give them nutrition and comfort as well as a connection to the home which their ancestors were forcibly removed from.
A Covance laboratory in New Jersey was the target of an 11-month PETA undercover investigation during which Covance employees were videotaped physically, verbally and psychologically abusing monkeys on a daily basis.
The US Department of Agriculture later fined Covance for 'serious violations of federal law'.
'We would like nothing better than to see Covance's animal torture chambers shut down for good,' said PETA research associate Alka Chandna in a statement here.
'But in the meantime, we are asking these fruit exporters to give these imprisoned and abused Indian macaques just a semblance of joy and comfort in their sad lives.'
Covance also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals. It is the single largest importer of primates in the US and the world's largest breeder of laboratory dogs.
Copyright Indo-Asian News Service
It's also good to note that "Covance also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals. It is the single largest importer of primates in the US and the world's largest breeder of laboratory dogs."
Article:
Donate mangoes to 'research' monkeys: animal rights group
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/33503.php/Donate_mangoes_
to_research_monkeys:_animal_rights_group
By Indo Asian News Service
New Delhi, June 12 (IANS) An animal rights group has urged India's top fruit exporters to donate mangoes as a small measure of comfort to the many Indian macaques used in experiments in various facilities operated by one of the world's largest animal-testing laboratories Covance.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), in a letter sent to exporters in eight cities across the country, has pointed out that because the macaques are kept in small, barren cages where they suffer from deprivation and loneliness, a meal of mangoes would give them nutrition and comfort as well as a connection to the home which their ancestors were forcibly removed from.
A Covance laboratory in New Jersey was the target of an 11-month PETA undercover investigation during which Covance employees were videotaped physically, verbally and psychologically abusing monkeys on a daily basis.
The US Department of Agriculture later fined Covance for 'serious violations of federal law'.
'We would like nothing better than to see Covance's animal torture chambers shut down for good,' said PETA research associate Alka Chandna in a statement here.
'But in the meantime, we are asking these fruit exporters to give these imprisoned and abused Indian macaques just a semblance of joy and comfort in their sad lives.'
Covance also deals in the import and sale of laboratory animals. It is the single largest importer of primates in the US and the world's largest breeder of laboratory dogs.
Copyright Indo-Asian News Service
Activists Have Been Banned from Demonstrating Where Construction Workers from Oxford University's New Research Laboratory are Living
I think it’s pretty clear now that the UK government has given up on upholding any rights people have to express their opinions.
Article:
Judge bans animal rights protest at builders' digs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2006/06/13/nanim13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/13/ixuknews.html
By Rosie Murray-West
(Filed: 13/06/2006)
Animal rights activists have been banned from demonstrating in a Cotswold village where construction workers from Oxford University's new research laboratory are being accommodated.
The activists' demonstrations were already restricted at the building site by an injunction granted to the university. Now a High Court judge has extended that order to cover Moreton-in-Marsh Fire Service College, where the workers are living.
The activists will be allowed to hold a lawful demonstration outside the college only on a Wednesday afternoon, provided there are fewer than 50 people. Speak, the organisation leading the campaign against the building, which will house animals for testing, said it would appeal.
The protests and threats to shareholders and workers led to an earlier contractor pulling out of the project.
Article:
Judge bans animal rights protest at builders' digs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2006/06/13/nanim13.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/13/ixuknews.html
By Rosie Murray-West
(Filed: 13/06/2006)
Animal rights activists have been banned from demonstrating in a Cotswold village where construction workers from Oxford University's new research laboratory are being accommodated.
The activists' demonstrations were already restricted at the building site by an injunction granted to the university. Now a High Court judge has extended that order to cover Moreton-in-Marsh Fire Service College, where the workers are living.
The activists will be allowed to hold a lawful demonstration outside the college only on a Wednesday afternoon, provided there are fewer than 50 people. Speak, the organisation leading the campaign against the building, which will house animals for testing, said it would appeal.
The protests and threats to shareholders and workers led to an earlier contractor pulling out of the project.
Actions to Expose Cruelty of Zoos in the Philippines Continues
Below you’ll read why this action continues. The treatment and condisitonr are horrendous.
Article:
Animal welfare group steps up anti-zoo drive
http://news.inq7.net/metro/index.php?index=1&story_id=78956
By Tina G. Santos
Inquirer
Editor's Note: Published on Page A18 of the June 13, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has stepped up its campaign to shut down all the zoos in the country.
Jamie Alarcon, spokesperson of the animal rights group, yesterday said they have come up with various antizoo advertisements “to strengthen their campaign and to remind people that animals are better off in the wild.”
“We stand in our belief that the only thing zoos teach people is that it’s okay to imprison the innocent and dictate to them what to do with their lives,” she said.
“It’s wrong to put these animals on display so that people can learn about them,” Alarcon added.
The protest, part of Peta’s worldwide campaign against zoos, calls for the Philippines to lead the way by becoming the first zoo-free country in Asia.
Peta’s antizoo advertisements include posters showing a comparison of animals who live in the wild and those confined in a zoo, Alarcon said.
One poster features an ostrich and an elephant inside a zoo.
The pictures is the message: “Life in the zoo: Lonely, sad, stressed, confined and away from home.”
“Ostriches can run up to 70 kilometers per hour. Just one stride can be three to five meters long—bigger than most rooms! They live in herds made up of 10 up to 100 animals,” Alarcon said.
She added that the elephant in Manila Zoo is confined to a small enclosure with little grass.
“Elephants can walk up to 48 kilometers every day in the wild but the entire zoo measures 5.5 hectares, or 0.055-sq km,” the Peta spokesperson said.
The other print ads feature an orangutan and several zebras living in the wild with the message: “Life in the wild: Gentle, happy, proud, content and free.”
“Orangutans, a highly endangered species, spend nearly all their time in the trees,” she said. “The Manila Zoo has a metal platform for its orangutan, but little else for swinging and other exercise.”
Alarcon said their group would also shoot antizoo commercials featuring local celebrities.
Article:
Animal welfare group steps up anti-zoo drive
http://news.inq7.net/metro/index.php?index=1&story_id=78956
By Tina G. Santos
Inquirer
Editor's Note: Published on Page A18 of the June 13, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has stepped up its campaign to shut down all the zoos in the country.
Jamie Alarcon, spokesperson of the animal rights group, yesterday said they have come up with various antizoo advertisements “to strengthen their campaign and to remind people that animals are better off in the wild.”
“We stand in our belief that the only thing zoos teach people is that it’s okay to imprison the innocent and dictate to them what to do with their lives,” she said.
“It’s wrong to put these animals on display so that people can learn about them,” Alarcon added.
The protest, part of Peta’s worldwide campaign against zoos, calls for the Philippines to lead the way by becoming the first zoo-free country in Asia.
Peta’s antizoo advertisements include posters showing a comparison of animals who live in the wild and those confined in a zoo, Alarcon said.
One poster features an ostrich and an elephant inside a zoo.
The pictures is the message: “Life in the zoo: Lonely, sad, stressed, confined and away from home.”
“Ostriches can run up to 70 kilometers per hour. Just one stride can be three to five meters long—bigger than most rooms! They live in herds made up of 10 up to 100 animals,” Alarcon said.
She added that the elephant in Manila Zoo is confined to a small enclosure with little grass.
“Elephants can walk up to 48 kilometers every day in the wild but the entire zoo measures 5.5 hectares, or 0.055-sq km,” the Peta spokesperson said.
The other print ads feature an orangutan and several zebras living in the wild with the message: “Life in the wild: Gentle, happy, proud, content and free.”
“Orangutans, a highly endangered species, spend nearly all their time in the trees,” she said. “The Manila Zoo has a metal platform for its orangutan, but little else for swinging and other exercise.”
Alarcon said their group would also shoot antizoo commercials featuring local celebrities.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Grocery Chain Safeway Wins Praise for Moving Towards Pushing Suppliers to Honor Higher Animal Welfare Standards
This is a great story that really gives you insight into the grocery industry and it’s relation to animal rights. Though Safeway is far from perfect, it is now basically leading the way in terms of moving the chain store supermarkets towards holding suppliers accountable to honoring higher animal welfare standards. This is accomplished through auditing of slaughter house facilities and through the formation of a six-member animal welfare committee. The formation of the committee really is ground breaking and demonstrates at least a movement in the right direction.
Article:
Safeway, PETA retract claws
Grocer may take further steps on animal rights
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269156/
In less than five years, the relationship between Pleasanton-based grocery giant Safeway Inc. and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has gone from adversarial to a mutual admiration society.
In 2001, PETA, the nation's foremost advocate for the humane treatment of animals, launched a Web site called Shameway.com that took the supermarket chain to task for not demanding higher standards for animal treatment from its suppliers of meat and poultry products. Some suppliers, the organization claims, engage in cruel and abusive practices in raising and slaughtering cattle, pigs, chickens and turkeys. PETA members picketed Safeway shareholder meetings to voice their displeasure.
But in 2006, the words of Matt Prescott, PETA's manager of factory farming campaigns, indicate a sea change in the pair's relationship.
"In our opinion, Safeway is second only to Whole Foods in the supermarket industry when it comes to having high animal welfare standards," Prescott said. "They have been cooperative and wonderful to work with for quite some time now."
The threat of a consumer boycott of Safeway, called for five years ago by PETA, based in Norfolk, Va., may have helped nudge the supermarket giant in its direction. But both Prescott and Safeway spokesman Brian Dowling said that as public concern has grown over the treatment - PETA supporters say mistreatment - of farm animals, the issue has gained traction in corporate America.
Today, Prescott, while praising Whole Foods Market Inc. and Safeway, says that some of their main industry rivals are "about as bad as you can get. They don't seem to take the issue seriously."
Dowling said times have changed very rapidly in the grocery industry - at least as far as his company is concerned.
"Our awareness as a company and as an industry is much greater on animal welfare today," Dowling said. "We hear from our customers that this is an issue they're concerned about. Many have made it clear they want to shop at a store that requires its suppliers to treat animals humanely."
Agreeing with that assessment is Neil Stern, partner in the Chicago retail consulting firm McMillan-Doolittle LLP.
"Safeway is doing a much better job of responding to its customers and being proactive about environmental, sustainability and animal welfare issues," Stern said. "It really is in keeping with the kind of consumers attracted to their new 'lifestyle' stores, who pay attention to these issues. It's a win-win for the company from a public image and financial standpoint."
Safeway received praise in late May from Oceana, an ocean conservation advocacy group, over the company's decision to voluntarily post signs warning customers of the presence of mercury in some fish and seafood products being sold in its stores. Oceana said Safeway and Wild Oats, a health-food supermarket chain based in Boulder, Colo., were the only grocers to post such warnings.
"The issue was raised and as we became more educated about it, we felt it was worthwhile to inform our customers," said Dowling, noting the Food and Drug Administration had issued the mercury warning. "We're in the business of being responsive to our customers' needs, so we keep on top of these issues."
On the animal welfare front, Safeway "audits" its suppliers of beef and pork products to make sure animals are treated humanely before and during the slaughtering process. Safeway uses its own auditors, as well as independent outside observers.
"The packing houses are increasingly tuned into this issue," Dowling said. "We engage in periodic short-notice visits. It's in their best interest to treat the animals humanely."
Dowling said Safeway also is eliminating lobster tanks from its stores. Animal rights activists claim the tanks can be dirty and crowded, and lobsters routinely starve.;
The company also is forming a six-member animal welfare committee, one of the first in the industry. The committee will examine issues as they arise and make recommendations to company officials. Half of the committee will consist of noted experts on issues of animal welfare and animal science: Temple Grandin, associate professor of animal science at Colorado State University; Janice Swanson, interim head of the animal science and industry department at Kansas State University; and Sara Shields, a lecturer in the animal science department of the University of Nebraska.
"We have a broad mandate to provide guidance to the company on animal welfare issues," said Dowling, a member of the committee. The committee likely will meet three times a year.
While still rare in the world of supermarkets, such groups have become common in the fast-food industry. Though it took plenty of pressure from animal rights organizations, one of America's greatest corporate icons, McDonald's Corp. of Oak Brook, Ill., began auditing cattle and pig slaughterhouses in 1999. Some of its suppliers were not able to meet the fast-food giant's new standards and were dropped. The following year, McDonald's began similar scrutiny of chicken and egg suppliers.
McDonald's has been followed by Burger King Corp. and Wendy's International Inc. PETA's Prescott said McDonald's reversal was a watershed event in the corporate animal welfare movement.
Processing of chickens and turkeys into poultry products sold at supermarkets and some restaurants has become the latest focus of welfare advocates. Birds are exempt from minimal treatment standards previously adopted by the federal government for cattle and pigs.
While he praised Safeway for its progress so far, Steven Gross, a member of PETA, which owns 192 shares of Safeway stock, urged the company at this year's annual shareholder meeting May 25 to adopt a policy requiring poultry suppliers to use controlled-atmosphere killing, or CAK. CAK methods essentially put birds to "sleep," with their oxygen supply gradually replaced by inert gases.
Prescott said CAK, though widely used in Europe, remains a rarity in North America, where, according to Prescott, poultry processors typically use electrified water to stun birds before slaughter. Since that technique often does not work, Prescott said, the animals have their throats slit or are dropped in scalding water while fully conscious. Critics of the practice claim it causes unnecessary suffering and is costlier than CAK.
"The CAK method is far more humane and more cost-effective," Prescott said.
Steve Burd, Safeway's CEO, told Gross and other shareholders that his company would "look into" the possibility of adopting CAK as a supplier requirement. Dowling confirmed the company would examine the matter.
Although those words may not cinch the deal for PETA, it's a good start, Prescott contends.
"Since our campaign against Safeway five years ago, the company has done an about-face on this issue," he said. "I think (the boycott) played a part, but I also feel company management has really changed. They realize today how deeply a large percentage of their customers care about this issue."
Article:
Safeway, PETA retract claws
Grocer may take further steps on animal rights
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269156/
In less than five years, the relationship between Pleasanton-based grocery giant Safeway Inc. and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has gone from adversarial to a mutual admiration society.
In 2001, PETA, the nation's foremost advocate for the humane treatment of animals, launched a Web site called Shameway.com that took the supermarket chain to task for not demanding higher standards for animal treatment from its suppliers of meat and poultry products. Some suppliers, the organization claims, engage in cruel and abusive practices in raising and slaughtering cattle, pigs, chickens and turkeys. PETA members picketed Safeway shareholder meetings to voice their displeasure.
But in 2006, the words of Matt Prescott, PETA's manager of factory farming campaigns, indicate a sea change in the pair's relationship.
"In our opinion, Safeway is second only to Whole Foods in the supermarket industry when it comes to having high animal welfare standards," Prescott said. "They have been cooperative and wonderful to work with for quite some time now."
The threat of a consumer boycott of Safeway, called for five years ago by PETA, based in Norfolk, Va., may have helped nudge the supermarket giant in its direction. But both Prescott and Safeway spokesman Brian Dowling said that as public concern has grown over the treatment - PETA supporters say mistreatment - of farm animals, the issue has gained traction in corporate America.
Today, Prescott, while praising Whole Foods Market Inc. and Safeway, says that some of their main industry rivals are "about as bad as you can get. They don't seem to take the issue seriously."
Dowling said times have changed very rapidly in the grocery industry - at least as far as his company is concerned.
"Our awareness as a company and as an industry is much greater on animal welfare today," Dowling said. "We hear from our customers that this is an issue they're concerned about. Many have made it clear they want to shop at a store that requires its suppliers to treat animals humanely."
Agreeing with that assessment is Neil Stern, partner in the Chicago retail consulting firm McMillan-Doolittle LLP.
"Safeway is doing a much better job of responding to its customers and being proactive about environmental, sustainability and animal welfare issues," Stern said. "It really is in keeping with the kind of consumers attracted to their new 'lifestyle' stores, who pay attention to these issues. It's a win-win for the company from a public image and financial standpoint."
Safeway received praise in late May from Oceana, an ocean conservation advocacy group, over the company's decision to voluntarily post signs warning customers of the presence of mercury in some fish and seafood products being sold in its stores. Oceana said Safeway and Wild Oats, a health-food supermarket chain based in Boulder, Colo., were the only grocers to post such warnings.
"The issue was raised and as we became more educated about it, we felt it was worthwhile to inform our customers," said Dowling, noting the Food and Drug Administration had issued the mercury warning. "We're in the business of being responsive to our customers' needs, so we keep on top of these issues."
On the animal welfare front, Safeway "audits" its suppliers of beef and pork products to make sure animals are treated humanely before and during the slaughtering process. Safeway uses its own auditors, as well as independent outside observers.
"The packing houses are increasingly tuned into this issue," Dowling said. "We engage in periodic short-notice visits. It's in their best interest to treat the animals humanely."
Dowling said Safeway also is eliminating lobster tanks from its stores. Animal rights activists claim the tanks can be dirty and crowded, and lobsters routinely starve.;
The company also is forming a six-member animal welfare committee, one of the first in the industry. The committee will examine issues as they arise and make recommendations to company officials. Half of the committee will consist of noted experts on issues of animal welfare and animal science: Temple Grandin, associate professor of animal science at Colorado State University; Janice Swanson, interim head of the animal science and industry department at Kansas State University; and Sara Shields, a lecturer in the animal science department of the University of Nebraska.
"We have a broad mandate to provide guidance to the company on animal welfare issues," said Dowling, a member of the committee. The committee likely will meet three times a year.
While still rare in the world of supermarkets, such groups have become common in the fast-food industry. Though it took plenty of pressure from animal rights organizations, one of America's greatest corporate icons, McDonald's Corp. of Oak Brook, Ill., began auditing cattle and pig slaughterhouses in 1999. Some of its suppliers were not able to meet the fast-food giant's new standards and were dropped. The following year, McDonald's began similar scrutiny of chicken and egg suppliers.
McDonald's has been followed by Burger King Corp. and Wendy's International Inc. PETA's Prescott said McDonald's reversal was a watershed event in the corporate animal welfare movement.
Processing of chickens and turkeys into poultry products sold at supermarkets and some restaurants has become the latest focus of welfare advocates. Birds are exempt from minimal treatment standards previously adopted by the federal government for cattle and pigs.
While he praised Safeway for its progress so far, Steven Gross, a member of PETA, which owns 192 shares of Safeway stock, urged the company at this year's annual shareholder meeting May 25 to adopt a policy requiring poultry suppliers to use controlled-atmosphere killing, or CAK. CAK methods essentially put birds to "sleep," with their oxygen supply gradually replaced by inert gases.
Prescott said CAK, though widely used in Europe, remains a rarity in North America, where, according to Prescott, poultry processors typically use electrified water to stun birds before slaughter. Since that technique often does not work, Prescott said, the animals have their throats slit or are dropped in scalding water while fully conscious. Critics of the practice claim it causes unnecessary suffering and is costlier than CAK.
"The CAK method is far more humane and more cost-effective," Prescott said.
Steve Burd, Safeway's CEO, told Gross and other shareholders that his company would "look into" the possibility of adopting CAK as a supplier requirement. Dowling confirmed the company would examine the matter.
Although those words may not cinch the deal for PETA, it's a good start, Prescott contends.
"Since our campaign against Safeway five years ago, the company has done an about-face on this issue," he said. "I think (the boycott) played a part, but I also feel company management has really changed. They realize today how deeply a large percentage of their customers care about this issue."
Another Premature and Unnatural Elephant Death in a Zoo: 48-Year-Old Asian Elephant Named Gita at Los Angeles Zoo
Once again, another death. A very important fact to note:
The average life span of Asian elephants in captivity is 42-years. In the wild, Asian elephants live about 70 years. Unless you’re an idiot, you can see the obvious difference.
Rightly, groups are calling for the resignation of the director of the Los Angeles Zoo, John Lewis, claiming that once again, it’s poor living conditions at the zoo that caused the death.
Whatever happens though, it’s clear that the lives of elephants in zoos are unnaturally short and painful.
Article:
Activists seek shake-up at the L.A. Zoo after elephant's death
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/11/
state/n203242D09.DTL&hw=Activists+seek+shake+up+at+the+
Zoo+after+elephant+death&sn=001&sc=1000
Sunday, June 11, 2006
(06-11) 20:32 PDT Los Angeles (AP) --
Animal rights activists have called for the resignation of the director of the Los Angeles Zoo, holding him responsible for the death of a 48-year-old Asian elephant named Gita.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals faxed a letter Sunday to Director John Lewis, saying Gita's death was caused by poor living conditions at the zoo.
PETA's letter said Lewis ignored "the simple fact that space limitations prevent the Los Angeles Zoo from adequately providing for the physical and social needs of the world's largest land mammal."
Zoo officials did not return calls seeking comment.
About 40 representatives from other activist groups protested Sunday in front of the zoo's entrance, demanding the elephants be transferred to a sanctuary.
"Our main message is that our organization holds the zoo, the mayor and city officials accountable for Gita's death," said Catherine Doyle of In Defense of Animals. "Gita was warehoused, held in inadequate conditions that worsened her already bad conditions, including arthritis."
Gita died Saturday morning after she was found sitting with her back legs tucked under. It was not immediately known whether a necropsy scheduled for Sunday at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Lab in San Bernardino had been completed. A call to the lab was not returned.
Zoo officials said they believed Gita died when toxins from her muscles entered her bloodstream under the crushing weight of her own frame. The elephant had suffered arthritis for years.
Lewis had said Gita outlived the 42-year average life span of Asian elephants in captivity. In the wild, Asian elephants live about 70 years.
The average life span of Asian elephants in captivity is 42-years. In the wild, Asian elephants live about 70 years. Unless you’re an idiot, you can see the obvious difference.
Rightly, groups are calling for the resignation of the director of the Los Angeles Zoo, John Lewis, claiming that once again, it’s poor living conditions at the zoo that caused the death.
Whatever happens though, it’s clear that the lives of elephants in zoos are unnaturally short and painful.
Article:
Activists seek shake-up at the L.A. Zoo after elephant's death
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/11/
state/n203242D09.DTL&hw=Activists+seek+shake+up+at+the+
Zoo+after+elephant+death&sn=001&sc=1000
Sunday, June 11, 2006
(06-11) 20:32 PDT Los Angeles (AP) --
Animal rights activists have called for the resignation of the director of the Los Angeles Zoo, holding him responsible for the death of a 48-year-old Asian elephant named Gita.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals faxed a letter Sunday to Director John Lewis, saying Gita's death was caused by poor living conditions at the zoo.
PETA's letter said Lewis ignored "the simple fact that space limitations prevent the Los Angeles Zoo from adequately providing for the physical and social needs of the world's largest land mammal."
Zoo officials did not return calls seeking comment.
About 40 representatives from other activist groups protested Sunday in front of the zoo's entrance, demanding the elephants be transferred to a sanctuary.
"Our main message is that our organization holds the zoo, the mayor and city officials accountable for Gita's death," said Catherine Doyle of In Defense of Animals. "Gita was warehoused, held in inadequate conditions that worsened her already bad conditions, including arthritis."
Gita died Saturday morning after she was found sitting with her back legs tucked under. It was not immediately known whether a necropsy scheduled for Sunday at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Lab in San Bernardino had been completed. A call to the lab was not returned.
Zoo officials said they believed Gita died when toxins from her muscles entered her bloodstream under the crushing weight of her own frame. The elephant had suffered arthritis for years.
Lewis had said Gita outlived the 42-year average life span of Asian elephants in captivity. In the wild, Asian elephants live about 70 years.
Editorial: Why it’s A Common Sense Good Move That Spain Is Proposing to Recognize the Moral Rights of Great Apes as Legal Persons
This is good reading for everyone. Not only does the author do a good job of breaking down the relations of humans to our primate cousins, he also lays out the logic behind Spain’s amazing move.
He also brings attention to the Great Ape Project, a group dedicated to pushing forth these necessary changes. You can learn more at: http://www.greatapeproject.org/
Article:
Spain Going Ape for Animal Rights
http://www.progress.org/2006/fold459.htm
Fred Foldvary
by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor
The Great Ape Project, based in a Seattle, Washington, has campaigned for a "community of equals" in which all the great apes would have the legal rights to life, freedom, and protection from torture. Now the ruling coalition in Spain is proposing to apply this idea in a law that would recognize the moral rights of great apes as legal persons.
The argument that all the great apes have the same moral rights as human beings rests on the biological connection that human beings have to the other apes, and to the relatively high intelligence shown by non-human apes. Human beings, apes, monkeys, and lemurs belong to the primate order of mammals. Human beings are of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which is composed of two families, Hylobatidae (gibbons, the lesser apes), and Hominidae, the great apes.
The great apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and homo sapiens, human beings. According to current biological taxonomy, Hominidae are currently classed into two subfamilies, Homininae (human beings and gorillas) and Ponginae (orangutans). Homininae are divided into two tribes, Hominini and Gorillini (gorillas). Hominini are classed in two genera, the genus Pan with chimpanzees, and the genus Homo with human beings.
So we can see that human beings are very closely related especially to chimpanzees, and also kin to gorillas. Homininae are highly intelligent, some gorillas having learned to speak in sign language, and chimpanzees being observed to use tools and to have a learned culture. The evidence indicates that the non-human great apes use reason and choose their action to a great extent. Moral logic therefore concludes that killing to inflicting pain on great apes imposes a great amount of harm on them, which implies that all great apes have moral rights. Spain would be well justified to become the first country to legally recognize the moral rights of great apes.
The proposal, led by Francisco Garrido, a member of the Green party, would legally replace the "ownership" of great apes with "moral guardianship," similar to the treatment of children and people in comas. Under that law, the initiation of force against a great ape, such killing, inflicting unnecessary pain, taking a baby away from its family, or enslavement (such as confining them in a cage), would be a crime, although zoos could continue to keep them if moving them elsewhere would be more harmful.
Other countries have already enacted some legal recognition of moral rights for apes. New Zealand's animal welfare act prescribes that research and testing using a great ape requires that the expected benefits be greater than the harm to the apes, and Great Britain has banned medical experimentation on great apes.
Opposition to the Spanish proposal has been voice by prominent Catholics, who say that human embryos would have less legal protection than the designated animals. Spanish members of Amnesty International have pointed out that the moral rights of many human beings are not yet protected, and should have priority.
But these are not valid arguments against the legal recognition of the moral rights of the great apes. One wrong does not justify another wrong. Those opposed to the legal protection of apes against harm need to confront the argument in favor of moral rights for apes. There is nothing in natural moral law that specifically privileges human beings as morally superior. The moral rights of human beings derives from their high degree, as a species, of intelligence and sentience, and if other species, such as chimpanzees and dolphins, exhibit such characteristics, then by natural moral law, they have the same level of moral rights.
The degree of reasoning capacity held by non-human apes, along with other animals such as dolphins, is a matter of biological evidence. It seems to me that we should give these animals the benefit of the doubt, and if we err, it should be on the side of their having moral rights.
So, bravo to Spain for leading the way. If the great apes are accorded more respect, then this would help the world to give human beings also greater protection for their human rights. If all the great apes are accorded legal protection against harm, we will then have to speak not of just human rights, but Hominidae rights. We could call all the great apes "sapiens" and refer to sapient rights. The motto could then be: equal rights for all sapiens; privileges for none!
He also brings attention to the Great Ape Project, a group dedicated to pushing forth these necessary changes. You can learn more at: http://www.greatapeproject.org/
Article:
Spain Going Ape for Animal Rights
http://www.progress.org/2006/fold459.htm
Fred Foldvary
by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor
The Great Ape Project, based in a Seattle, Washington, has campaigned for a "community of equals" in which all the great apes would have the legal rights to life, freedom, and protection from torture. Now the ruling coalition in Spain is proposing to apply this idea in a law that would recognize the moral rights of great apes as legal persons.
The argument that all the great apes have the same moral rights as human beings rests on the biological connection that human beings have to the other apes, and to the relatively high intelligence shown by non-human apes. Human beings, apes, monkeys, and lemurs belong to the primate order of mammals. Human beings are of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which is composed of two families, Hylobatidae (gibbons, the lesser apes), and Hominidae, the great apes.
The great apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and homo sapiens, human beings. According to current biological taxonomy, Hominidae are currently classed into two subfamilies, Homininae (human beings and gorillas) and Ponginae (orangutans). Homininae are divided into two tribes, Hominini and Gorillini (gorillas). Hominini are classed in two genera, the genus Pan with chimpanzees, and the genus Homo with human beings.
So we can see that human beings are very closely related especially to chimpanzees, and also kin to gorillas. Homininae are highly intelligent, some gorillas having learned to speak in sign language, and chimpanzees being observed to use tools and to have a learned culture. The evidence indicates that the non-human great apes use reason and choose their action to a great extent. Moral logic therefore concludes that killing to inflicting pain on great apes imposes a great amount of harm on them, which implies that all great apes have moral rights. Spain would be well justified to become the first country to legally recognize the moral rights of great apes.
The proposal, led by Francisco Garrido, a member of the Green party, would legally replace the "ownership" of great apes with "moral guardianship," similar to the treatment of children and people in comas. Under that law, the initiation of force against a great ape, such killing, inflicting unnecessary pain, taking a baby away from its family, or enslavement (such as confining them in a cage), would be a crime, although zoos could continue to keep them if moving them elsewhere would be more harmful.
Other countries have already enacted some legal recognition of moral rights for apes. New Zealand's animal welfare act prescribes that research and testing using a great ape requires that the expected benefits be greater than the harm to the apes, and Great Britain has banned medical experimentation on great apes.
Opposition to the Spanish proposal has been voice by prominent Catholics, who say that human embryos would have less legal protection than the designated animals. Spanish members of Amnesty International have pointed out that the moral rights of many human beings are not yet protected, and should have priority.
But these are not valid arguments against the legal recognition of the moral rights of the great apes. One wrong does not justify another wrong. Those opposed to the legal protection of apes against harm need to confront the argument in favor of moral rights for apes. There is nothing in natural moral law that specifically privileges human beings as morally superior. The moral rights of human beings derives from their high degree, as a species, of intelligence and sentience, and if other species, such as chimpanzees and dolphins, exhibit such characteristics, then by natural moral law, they have the same level of moral rights.
The degree of reasoning capacity held by non-human apes, along with other animals such as dolphins, is a matter of biological evidence. It seems to me that we should give these animals the benefit of the doubt, and if we err, it should be on the side of their having moral rights.
So, bravo to Spain for leading the way. If the great apes are accorded more respect, then this would help the world to give human beings also greater protection for their human rights. If all the great apes are accorded legal protection against harm, we will then have to speak not of just human rights, but Hominidae rights. We could call all the great apes "sapiens" and refer to sapient rights. The motto could then be: equal rights for all sapiens; privileges for none!
Playing God: Some Chickens Genetically Engineered to Carry a Gene for New Trait: Offspring Carry the Same Trait: Positive or Negative for the Future?
Yes, genetic engineering is nothing new. And, this article is fully acting as a cheerleader for it. But it does touch on the important question of what will happen in the future? That is, will totally altering the genetic code that leads to such things as eggs carrying custom-made human monoclonal antibodies to fight cancer cause more harm than good? Is it really wise to trust a company to produce artificial entities – including antibodies – that will not in the long run harm humans?
These are questions not being asked by anyone. Strangely, their not even being asked by right wing Christians who should question the logic behind tinkering with what they see as god’s design – the genetic code. Certainly an issue to look into.
Altered chickens ruffling feathers
Company adds gene in quest for new medicines
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20060611/NEWS07/606110577&SearchID=73247437178545
June 11, 2006
BY LISA KRIEGER
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The chickens in the lab at the Burlingame, Calif., biotech company look just like any other bird you might want to roast.
But they're far more precious than your average domestic chicken: They've been genetically engineered to carry a gene for a new trait. What's more, their offspring carry the same trait -- in poultry perpetuity.
These chickens, created by Origen Therapeutics and unveiled in last week's issue of the journal Nature, could build future flocks of birds that lay eggs with therapeutic contents -- feathered medicine factories that are cost-effective, clean and potentially lifesaving.
Transplanting genes from one species to another has become almost routine, as gene-altered animals have entered a commercial era.
What's different about these new birds is they carry inserted genes in their sperm or egg, so the alteration is passed on to future generations. Origen won't say how many of these birds they've created, citing proprietary concerns.
Last summer, Origen built chickens with human genes that lay eggs carrying custom-made human monoclonal antibodies to fight cancer. While important, this was a laborious bird-by-bird procedure.
"Once we introduce a genetic change, all the offspring and their offspring will carry that modification," said Robert Kay, chief executive of Origen Therapeutics.
For now, the new gene doesn't do much. It is simply a fluorescent green marker gene, which causes the birds to glow in the dark under ultraviolet light.
But it proves that the new technique works.
Mass-producing antibodies
The next step is to create birds with genes for a wide array of different monoclonal antibodies, which could then be tested as therapeutic tools. By lowering the cost of producing each antibody, many more can be tested.
Eggs with the desirable antibodies could roll off assembly lines by the billion.
The birds are White Leghorns, the sturdy variety found in supermarket freezers.
But the White Leghorns at Origen, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each, live pampered lives. Their room is climate-controlled, with filtered air. Access is highly restricted.
"It is very comfortable for the birds," said Kay.
To get the volume of monoclonal antibodies needed for commercialization, Origen seeks to build a flock of 5,000 to 10,000 birds.
Once a line of birds is well-established, breeding is relatively cheap, said Kay. He asserts that the cost of maintaining them will cost far less than other biotech production facilities -- an estimated $20 million for a facility of 10,000 birds.
"This work addresses a major biomedical issue -- how to produce antibody-based medicines in an easy, cost-effective way," according to a news release by Matthew E. Portnoy, of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research. Origen collaborated with the University of California-Davis on the work.
Human traits may be at risk
Germ line modification, as the procedure is called, has been achieved in mice as well. But because they don't lay eggs, Origen says they have less commercial potential.
But such techniques are barred in humans in the United States, Britain and much of the rest of the world, because of fears that someone will attempt to re-engineer the collective inheritance of the entire species.
Critics fear that while germ line engineering could one day end deadly genetic diseases, it also could alter fundamental human characteristics such as personality and appearance.
The chicken research ruffles the feathers of animal-rights advocates, who object to the mass production of chickens in general. But Origen maintains that they're healthy and happy chickens.
"They look and act like any other chicken you might find," said Kay. "But they never get near a grocery store."
These are questions not being asked by anyone. Strangely, their not even being asked by right wing Christians who should question the logic behind tinkering with what they see as god’s design – the genetic code. Certainly an issue to look into.
Altered chickens ruffling feathers
Company adds gene in quest for new medicines
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20060611/NEWS07/606110577&SearchID=73247437178545
June 11, 2006
BY LISA KRIEGER
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The chickens in the lab at the Burlingame, Calif., biotech company look just like any other bird you might want to roast.
But they're far more precious than your average domestic chicken: They've been genetically engineered to carry a gene for a new trait. What's more, their offspring carry the same trait -- in poultry perpetuity.
These chickens, created by Origen Therapeutics and unveiled in last week's issue of the journal Nature, could build future flocks of birds that lay eggs with therapeutic contents -- feathered medicine factories that are cost-effective, clean and potentially lifesaving.
Transplanting genes from one species to another has become almost routine, as gene-altered animals have entered a commercial era.
What's different about these new birds is they carry inserted genes in their sperm or egg, so the alteration is passed on to future generations. Origen won't say how many of these birds they've created, citing proprietary concerns.
Last summer, Origen built chickens with human genes that lay eggs carrying custom-made human monoclonal antibodies to fight cancer. While important, this was a laborious bird-by-bird procedure.
"Once we introduce a genetic change, all the offspring and their offspring will carry that modification," said Robert Kay, chief executive of Origen Therapeutics.
For now, the new gene doesn't do much. It is simply a fluorescent green marker gene, which causes the birds to glow in the dark under ultraviolet light.
But it proves that the new technique works.
Mass-producing antibodies
The next step is to create birds with genes for a wide array of different monoclonal antibodies, which could then be tested as therapeutic tools. By lowering the cost of producing each antibody, many more can be tested.
Eggs with the desirable antibodies could roll off assembly lines by the billion.
The birds are White Leghorns, the sturdy variety found in supermarket freezers.
But the White Leghorns at Origen, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each, live pampered lives. Their room is climate-controlled, with filtered air. Access is highly restricted.
"It is very comfortable for the birds," said Kay.
To get the volume of monoclonal antibodies needed for commercialization, Origen seeks to build a flock of 5,000 to 10,000 birds.
Once a line of birds is well-established, breeding is relatively cheap, said Kay. He asserts that the cost of maintaining them will cost far less than other biotech production facilities -- an estimated $20 million for a facility of 10,000 birds.
"This work addresses a major biomedical issue -- how to produce antibody-based medicines in an easy, cost-effective way," according to a news release by Matthew E. Portnoy, of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research. Origen collaborated with the University of California-Davis on the work.
Human traits may be at risk
Germ line modification, as the procedure is called, has been achieved in mice as well. But because they don't lay eggs, Origen says they have less commercial potential.
But such techniques are barred in humans in the United States, Britain and much of the rest of the world, because of fears that someone will attempt to re-engineer the collective inheritance of the entire species.
Critics fear that while germ line engineering could one day end deadly genetic diseases, it also could alter fundamental human characteristics such as personality and appearance.
The chicken research ruffles the feathers of animal-rights advocates, who object to the mass production of chickens in general. But Origen maintains that they're healthy and happy chickens.
"They look and act like any other chicken you might find," said Kay. "But they never get near a grocery store."
Friday, June 09, 2006
New Study: Some Species of Animals are Already Changing Genetically in Order to Adapt to Rapid Climate Change
Scary, but not surprising. Interesting study. Sad results, but good to know.
Article:
Global warming has forced animals to evolve already
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article753745.ece
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 09 June 2006
Some species of animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to rapid climate change within just a few generations, scientists believe.
Smaller animals in particular that can breed quickly, such as squirrels, some birds and insects, are showing signs of evolving new patterns of behaviour to increase their chances of survival. Scientists say that many of the genetic adaptations are to cope with changes in the length of the seasons rather than the absolute increases in summer temperatures.
Larger animals and species that are slow to reproduce may on the other hand find it difficult to cope with climate change because they cannot adapt genetically as quickly as smaller, more fertile creatures that have rapid life cycles.
"Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Christina Holzapfel, from the University of Oregon in Eugene.
Examples included Canadian red squirrels reproducing earlier in the year, German blackcap birds migrating and arriving earlier at their nesting grounds, and northern American mosquitoes living in water-filled leaves of carnivorous plants which can adjust their life cycles to shorter more "southern" day lengths.
William Bradshaw, professor of biology at Oregon, said that global warming is going at a faster rate at more northerly latitudes which is causing longer growing seasons, and less cold stress caused by extreme winter weather. "Over the past 40 years, animal species have been extending their range toward the poles and populations have been migrating, developing or reproducing earlier," Professor Bradshaw said.
"These expansions and changes have often been attributed to 'phenotypic plasticity', or the ability of individuals to modify their behaviour, morphology or physiology in response to altered environmental conditions," he said.
However, the scientists point out that in addition to these ad-hoc changes in behaviour, there is another type of evolutionary change at the level of the genes which is being caused by rapid climate change.
"Phenotypic plasticity is not the whole story. Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Dr Holzapfel.
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers point out that there is little evidence to suggest that animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to the higher summer temperatures associated with climate change. Dr Holzapfel said that adaptations to changing seasons are likely to come first because this will have a more direct bearing on an individual's breeding potential.
"However, it is clear that unless the long-term magnitude of rapid change is widely acknowledged and effective steps are taken to mitigate its effects, natural communities that we are familiar with will cease to exist," she says.
* Global warming could be returning the world to the way it was four million years ago when sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are today, according to another study in Science.
Article:
Global warming has forced animals to evolve already
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article753745.ece
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 09 June 2006
Some species of animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to rapid climate change within just a few generations, scientists believe.
Smaller animals in particular that can breed quickly, such as squirrels, some birds and insects, are showing signs of evolving new patterns of behaviour to increase their chances of survival. Scientists say that many of the genetic adaptations are to cope with changes in the length of the seasons rather than the absolute increases in summer temperatures.
Larger animals and species that are slow to reproduce may on the other hand find it difficult to cope with climate change because they cannot adapt genetically as quickly as smaller, more fertile creatures that have rapid life cycles.
"Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Christina Holzapfel, from the University of Oregon in Eugene.
Examples included Canadian red squirrels reproducing earlier in the year, German blackcap birds migrating and arriving earlier at their nesting grounds, and northern American mosquitoes living in water-filled leaves of carnivorous plants which can adjust their life cycles to shorter more "southern" day lengths.
William Bradshaw, professor of biology at Oregon, said that global warming is going at a faster rate at more northerly latitudes which is causing longer growing seasons, and less cold stress caused by extreme winter weather. "Over the past 40 years, animal species have been extending their range toward the poles and populations have been migrating, developing or reproducing earlier," Professor Bradshaw said.
"These expansions and changes have often been attributed to 'phenotypic plasticity', or the ability of individuals to modify their behaviour, morphology or physiology in response to altered environmental conditions," he said.
However, the scientists point out that in addition to these ad-hoc changes in behaviour, there is another type of evolutionary change at the level of the genes which is being caused by rapid climate change.
"Phenotypic plasticity is not the whole story. Studies show that over the past several decades, rapid climate change has led to heritable, genetic changes in animal populations," said Dr Holzapfel.
Writing in the journal Science, the researchers point out that there is little evidence to suggest that animals are changing genetically in order to adapt to the higher summer temperatures associated with climate change. Dr Holzapfel said that adaptations to changing seasons are likely to come first because this will have a more direct bearing on an individual's breeding potential.
"However, it is clear that unless the long-term magnitude of rapid change is widely acknowledged and effective steps are taken to mitigate its effects, natural communities that we are familiar with will cease to exist," she says.
* Global warming could be returning the world to the way it was four million years ago when sea levels were 80 feet higher than they are today, according to another study in Science.
Whale and Dolphin News
This is from a different group at http://www.wdcs.org. They are committed to bring news regarding whales and dolphins. As usual, there are many unfortunate issues to deal with, including Japan illegally whaling. Please read on.
It’s now less than two weeks until the start of this year’s meeting of the International Whaling Commission, where the fate of the world’s whales hangs in the balance. With whaling countries killing more whales every year, adding new, endangered species to their target list and pushing for a full-scale resumption of commercial whaling, our work at this meeting has never been more crucial.
You too can join our campaign to end commercial whaling for good. Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you all the whaling news from the meeting and highlight how you can get involved in our campaign, starting with Save the Whale Week!
WHALE AND DOLPHIN NEWS IN BRIEF
Japan’s North Pacific hunt starts
Four ships, including a factory storage vessel, have set sail from Japan for its annual whale hunt in the North Pacific in defiance of the moratorium on commercial whaling.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
0A6360AD295A728B80257178003274D1
WDCS and CMS join forces to seek solutions
WDCS and CMS (Convention of Migratory Species of Wild Animals) are calling on all countries that have any interaction with the world’s oceans to start solving the problems that face whales and dolphins.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
D5CFADF2032B6F1A8025717600476267
Friendly dolphin is refloated in Cumbria, UK
Marra, the friendly bottlenose dolphin rescued earlier this year from a dock in Cumbria, has stranded and been refloated.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
1C685406EF618B58802571700031D2EA
Dolphins threatened by indiscriminate oil exploration
Dolphins and porpoises are being put at risk by UK Government plans to open up the whole of the Irish Sea, including supposedly protected areas, to allow businesses to prospect for oil and gas.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
32D7D16BF6DE45528025716F005B24BB
Japan hoping to boost whale meat sales
A new company has been set up in Japan in an effort to increase sales of whale meat by supplying the products to schools, hospitals and family restaurants.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
83F71F01C8A53C938025716B00327A61
SAVE THE WHALE WEEK
Imagine if you could help WDCS stop commercial whaling and protect whales and dolphins all over the world by throwing a party. Well that’s just what we’re asking you to do.
July 6th – 15th 2006 is our very first Save the Whale Week and we are asking people to get involved by having a party or organising an event to raise money. This is your chance to stand up to the unnecessary cruelty these wonderful animals face.
All you need to do is get yourself a FREE Save the Whale Week Party Pack and organise a party or event, get sponsored.
It’s a chance to raise money and have fun while you’re doing it!
To get hold of your free party pack, please go to:
http://www.wdcs.org/savethewhaleweek, e-mail events@wdcs.org or call our Events team on +44 (0)1249 449500
JOIN US IN WALES TO WATCH DOLPHINS
Join our travel wing, out of the blue, on a short break to see bottlenose dolphins and other wildlife of the beautiful Cardigan Bay area.
The trip includes the chance to see bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises, seals and seabirds, as well as enjoying scenic coastal walks in this beautiful, remote part of Wales.
We’ve got limited availability left for this summer – so book now to be sure of a place!
For more information please call Rob or Lucy on 01249 449 533/ 547
http://www.wdcs.org/outoftheblue
It’s now less than two weeks until the start of this year’s meeting of the International Whaling Commission, where the fate of the world’s whales hangs in the balance. With whaling countries killing more whales every year, adding new, endangered species to their target list and pushing for a full-scale resumption of commercial whaling, our work at this meeting has never been more crucial.
You too can join our campaign to end commercial whaling for good. Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you all the whaling news from the meeting and highlight how you can get involved in our campaign, starting with Save the Whale Week!
WHALE AND DOLPHIN NEWS IN BRIEF
Japan’s North Pacific hunt starts
Four ships, including a factory storage vessel, have set sail from Japan for its annual whale hunt in the North Pacific in defiance of the moratorium on commercial whaling.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
0A6360AD295A728B80257178003274D1
WDCS and CMS join forces to seek solutions
WDCS and CMS (Convention of Migratory Species of Wild Animals) are calling on all countries that have any interaction with the world’s oceans to start solving the problems that face whales and dolphins.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
D5CFADF2032B6F1A8025717600476267
Friendly dolphin is refloated in Cumbria, UK
Marra, the friendly bottlenose dolphin rescued earlier this year from a dock in Cumbria, has stranded and been refloated.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
1C685406EF618B58802571700031D2EA
Dolphins threatened by indiscriminate oil exploration
Dolphins and porpoises are being put at risk by UK Government plans to open up the whole of the Irish Sea, including supposedly protected areas, to allow businesses to prospect for oil and gas.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
32D7D16BF6DE45528025716F005B24BB
Japan hoping to boost whale meat sales
A new company has been set up in Japan in an effort to increase sales of whale meat by supplying the products to schools, hospitals and family restaurants.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/
83F71F01C8A53C938025716B00327A61
SAVE THE WHALE WEEK
Imagine if you could help WDCS stop commercial whaling and protect whales and dolphins all over the world by throwing a party. Well that’s just what we’re asking you to do.
July 6th – 15th 2006 is our very first Save the Whale Week and we are asking people to get involved by having a party or organising an event to raise money. This is your chance to stand up to the unnecessary cruelty these wonderful animals face.
All you need to do is get yourself a FREE Save the Whale Week Party Pack and organise a party or event, get sponsored.
It’s a chance to raise money and have fun while you’re doing it!
To get hold of your free party pack, please go to:
http://www.wdcs.org/savethewhaleweek, e-mail events@wdcs.org or call our Events team on +44 (0)1249 449500
JOIN US IN WALES TO WATCH DOLPHINS
Join our travel wing, out of the blue, on a short break to see bottlenose dolphins and other wildlife of the beautiful Cardigan Bay area.
The trip includes the chance to see bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises, seals and seabirds, as well as enjoying scenic coastal walks in this beautiful, remote part of Wales.
We’ve got limited availability left for this summer – so book now to be sure of a place!
For more information please call Rob or Lucy on 01249 449 533/ 547
http://www.wdcs.org/outoftheblue
Polo Ralph Lauren Is Eliminating Fur from All of Its Apparel and Home Collections, Starting With the Holiday 2006 Season
Wow, if true. We’ll keep a close watch to see if this changes. But for now, good decision on the part of Polo. This truly will make a big difference.
Article:
olo Ralph Lauren to Drop Fur From Items
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060608/polo_ralph_
lauren_fur.html?.v=1
Thursday June 8, 6:47 pm ET
By Anne D'Innocenzio, AP Business Writer
Polo Ralph Lauren to Eliminate Fur From All of Its Apparel, Home
Collections
NEW YORK (AP) -- Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. said late Thursday that it is
eliminating fur from all of its apparel and home collections, starting
with the holiday 2006 season.
In a press release, the New York-based fashion house said that fur had
only been "used on a limited basis as an accent in some collections."
"We are publicly announcing this decision because the use of fur has been
under review internally and we feel that the time is right to take this
action," the company said in a statement.
The move by Polo Ralph Lauren represents the first major designer house
to abandon fur since designer Calvin Klein did so in the mid-1990s,
according to animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, which was involved in negotiations with Polo Ralph Lauren since
March.
"This is one of the biggest victories in the fur campaign," said Dan
Mathews, vice president at PETA.
PETA, known for disrupting fashion shows, and storming Seventh Avenue
fashion houses, has been mounting pressure on other designer fashion
brands, including Donna Karan International and luxury goods brand
Burberry Group PLC.
Late last year, J. Crew Group Inc. stopped selling fur after PETA
launched a boycott campaign and staged protests outside the retailer's
doors nationwide.
"Ralph Lauren clothes have always been elegant, but now you can feel
comfortable inside and out knowing that the company has made this
compassionate decision," said Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA.
As part of its initiative, Polo Ralph Lauren will donate 1,200 new units
of women's clothing containing fur to charitable organizations, which
will give them to an international relief organization for distribution
to those in need.
Polo Ralph Lauren officials declined to say how much canceled fur orders
will cost them financially.
Article:
olo Ralph Lauren to Drop Fur From Items
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060608/polo_ralph_
lauren_fur.html?.v=1
Thursday June 8, 6:47 pm ET
By Anne D'Innocenzio, AP Business Writer
Polo Ralph Lauren to Eliminate Fur From All of Its Apparel, Home
Collections
NEW YORK (AP) -- Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. said late Thursday that it is
eliminating fur from all of its apparel and home collections, starting
with the holiday 2006 season.
In a press release, the New York-based fashion house said that fur had
only been "used on a limited basis as an accent in some collections."
"We are publicly announcing this decision because the use of fur has been
under review internally and we feel that the time is right to take this
action," the company said in a statement.
The move by Polo Ralph Lauren represents the first major designer house
to abandon fur since designer Calvin Klein did so in the mid-1990s,
according to animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, which was involved in negotiations with Polo Ralph Lauren since
March.
"This is one of the biggest victories in the fur campaign," said Dan
Mathews, vice president at PETA.
PETA, known for disrupting fashion shows, and storming Seventh Avenue
fashion houses, has been mounting pressure on other designer fashion
brands, including Donna Karan International and luxury goods brand
Burberry Group PLC.
Late last year, J. Crew Group Inc. stopped selling fur after PETA
launched a boycott campaign and staged protests outside the retailer's
doors nationwide.
"Ralph Lauren clothes have always been elegant, but now you can feel
comfortable inside and out knowing that the company has made this
compassionate decision," said Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA.
As part of its initiative, Polo Ralph Lauren will donate 1,200 new units
of women's clothing containing fur to charitable organizations, which
will give them to an international relief organization for distribution
to those in need.
Polo Ralph Lauren officials declined to say how much canceled fur orders
will cost them financially.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Exposed: Principal Buyer of Canadian Dead Baby Seal Skins Subsidized by Government to Burn Pelts
Yep, not surprised at all. As we’ve talked about a few times, there is definitely some sort of deep government involvement in keeping this ridiculously cruel practice alive. Just sick, just plain sick. Shows the lengths that governments and business will go to. Scary stuff.
This information begs to be posted everywhere! Please post far and wide.
Article:
Principal Buyer of Canadian Seal Skins Subsidized by Government To Burn Pelts
June 7, 2006
WASHINGTON – The Humane Society of the United States today reacted to
news that a Norwegian company has destroyed 10,000 harp seal skins,
commenting that the revelation contradicts claims of strong markets for seal products.
Norwegian media outlets reported last week that the top buyer of Canadian seal pelts, Norwegian based GC Rieber, was paid by the Norwegian government to destroy 10,000 harp seal skins. GC Rieber is considered the economic backbone of the Canadian sealing industry, each year buying 50 to 80 percent of the skins from seals killed during the annual seal hunt in Canada. Slain Canadian seals account for more than 90 percent of Rieber’s seal skin business.
“For years we’ve suspected some form of price rigging through hidden government subsidies – now we have proof,” said Rebecca Aldworth, director of Canadian wildlife issues for The Humane Society of the United States. “These revelations demonstrate that the Canadian seal hunt, in addition to being cruel and inhumane, is also economically unjustified.”
GC Rieber purchases sealskins through its Newfoundland subsidiary, Carino, and has repeatedly claimed that the demand for seal products is so strong they cannot match supply. However, a recent media report revealed that the Norwegian government has paid Rieber 2 million Norwegian kroner (about $370,000 CAD/ $330,000 USD) to burn 10,000 excess Norwegian harp seal skins.
The Norwegian harp seal skins were obtained from sealers, who had also received major government subsidies (2.5 million Norwegian kroner) to kill the seals. The Norwegian government justified the burning of the skins, indicating it was impossible to find markets for the harp seal pelts.
Animal protection groups and trade specialists have questioned the repeated claims of strong sealskin markets made by Rieber in recent years.
“In 2000, the markets were so weak that Carino stopped buying seal skins halfway through the season, and sealers returning from the hunt dumped their seal skins into the ocean because they were worthless,” said Aldworth. “Just a few years later, Carino is claiming their sales are the strongest they’ve ever been – even as major European markets are closing.”
This information begs to be posted everywhere! Please post far and wide.
Article:
Principal Buyer of Canadian Seal Skins Subsidized by Government To Burn Pelts
June 7, 2006
WASHINGTON – The Humane Society of the United States today reacted to
news that a Norwegian company has destroyed 10,000 harp seal skins,
commenting that the revelation contradicts claims of strong markets for seal products.
Norwegian media outlets reported last week that the top buyer of Canadian seal pelts, Norwegian based GC Rieber, was paid by the Norwegian government to destroy 10,000 harp seal skins. GC Rieber is considered the economic backbone of the Canadian sealing industry, each year buying 50 to 80 percent of the skins from seals killed during the annual seal hunt in Canada. Slain Canadian seals account for more than 90 percent of Rieber’s seal skin business.
“For years we’ve suspected some form of price rigging through hidden government subsidies – now we have proof,” said Rebecca Aldworth, director of Canadian wildlife issues for The Humane Society of the United States. “These revelations demonstrate that the Canadian seal hunt, in addition to being cruel and inhumane, is also economically unjustified.”
GC Rieber purchases sealskins through its Newfoundland subsidiary, Carino, and has repeatedly claimed that the demand for seal products is so strong they cannot match supply. However, a recent media report revealed that the Norwegian government has paid Rieber 2 million Norwegian kroner (about $370,000 CAD/ $330,000 USD) to burn 10,000 excess Norwegian harp seal skins.
The Norwegian harp seal skins were obtained from sealers, who had also received major government subsidies (2.5 million Norwegian kroner) to kill the seals. The Norwegian government justified the burning of the skins, indicating it was impossible to find markets for the harp seal pelts.
Animal protection groups and trade specialists have questioned the repeated claims of strong sealskin markets made by Rieber in recent years.
“In 2000, the markets were so weak that Carino stopped buying seal skins halfway through the season, and sealers returning from the hunt dumped their seal skins into the ocean because they were worthless,” said Aldworth. “Just a few years later, Carino is claiming their sales are the strongest they’ve ever been – even as major European markets are closing.”
Whores to Business and Hunting the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Voted To Downgrade the Manatee From Endangered To Threatened
Predicted this one as well. Now the doors are open to developers, hunters, boaters, etc.
For more on the Manatee and how you can help protect it, visit the Save the Manatee Club at http://www.savethemanatee.org/
Article:
State shuffles animals on protection lists
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/
News/Headlines/frtHEAD01060806.htm
Protests don't sway wildlife commission
By VIRGINIA SMITH
Staff Writer
WEST PALM BEACH -- Unmoved by the waving of manatee flags, tearful pleas and heirloom china broken in protest, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on Wednesday voted unanimously to downgrade the Florida manatee from endangered, a title it has held for more than 30 years, to threatened.
The change came as a result of a scientific review that showed Florida's approximately 3,000 manatees to be increasing in some locations, declining or stable in others, and not facing an immediate risk of extinction.
Commissioners also moved Wednesday to de-list the bald eagle, declare the Panama City crayfish threatened, and upgrade the gopher tortoise from a species of special concern to threatened.
The bald eagle's removal was met with little protest, and the crayfish's and the gopher tortoise's upgrades were widely applauded.
In the manatee's case, only fishermen and representatives of boating and dock-building interests spoke in support of a change. Five years ago, said Ted Forsgren of the Coastal Conservation Association, a fishermen's organization, "groups were claiming the manatee to be on the brink of extinction and that's false."
The commission says the threatened designation won't result in reduced protections for manatees, and until it approves a formal management plan, a process that will take at least until 2007, the manatee keeps its status under Florida law as endangered. Its endangered designation under federal law won't be affected.
But advocates for sea cows fear that public perception will be affected, and on Wednesday the fruits of their efforts to delay the change ranged from the purely logical -- arguing that the state's system for evaluating threat is flawed -- to the flat-out theatrical.
Lee County resident Virginia Splitt, one of more than 50 people to address the commission on the manatee issue, presented its seven members with something wrapped in pink tissue paper. After assuring one skeptical commissioner that it would not explode, she crushed the object (an antique porcelain pitcher) with her foot, likening it to a manatee hit by a boat.
More pointed objections were raised by representatives of Florida environmental and animal-rights groups. Last week 17 of them, including the Save the Manatee Club, signed a petition saying the state had set the bar for endangerment too high and moved prematurely to downgrade the manatee.
And they asked the commission to delay any change until, at the very least, a controversy over wording is resolved.
Florida's three-tiered system for classifying species, adopted in 1999, is modeled after the World Conservation Union's internationally recognized standards, but differs in one important way: The names don't match up.
What the international group calls critically endangered, Florida calls endangered, and what the group calls endangered, Florida calls merely threatened. (A third international category, vulnerable, matches the state's species of special concern). If Florida had adopted the international group's names as well as its standards, manatees would still be called endangered.
Manatee advocates feel the endangered label is essential to keeping sea cow protections from being eroded, but commissioners disagreed.
"The key is the management plan," said Herky Huffman of Enterprise. "If you don't have a good plan you can call them 'endangered-endangered-endangered' and it won't matter."
"Going from 1,200 manatees a couple decades ago to 3,200 today and calling them 'endangered' is confusing to me," said commissioner Brian Yablonski of Tallahassee. "When someone hears the term 'threatened,' it doesn't mean 'happy campers.' "
Judith Vallee, executive director of the Save the Manatee Club, said her group would work on the state's new management plan for manatees, but it would also consider measures, including litigation, to force the state to adopt the international names.
"We'll look at everything in our toolbox," Vallee said. "Whatever legal remedies we have."
Ask For Maximum Sentence for Premeditated Dog Killers
Normally I do not ask people to take action. This case though is disturbing and it’s easy to simply go to the electronic petition. The link can be found below.
On May 31, 2006, two young pit bulls were found dead on a small path
near the town's firing range.
They had been shot 37 times.
With two high-powered rifles in the back of their car, two men drove
their victims to a desolate dirt road at the edge of a wooded area of Cape
Cod. Then, police said, Todd A. Soderberg and Keith B. Kynock let their
victims go, watching them flee for safety, 40 feet, then 50 feet down the road,
before the two lowered their rifles and opened fire. After allegedly firing
37 rounds, their victims lay dead, their bodies shattered from the rifle blasts.
''This was an execution,'' Barnstable police Sgt. Sean Sweeney said.
''This was not a humane act in any way.''
We are not only outraged at this cowardly act of premeditated brutal
and cold blooded murder, but that they pleaded NOT guilty! Aside from the
weapons charges, the items found in one vehicle denotes these men had
other intentions besides the premeditated murder of the two Pit Bulls.
We, the People, respectfully ask that each man be convicted on two counts of
felony and serve the maximum allowed by the laws of MA.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION "Public Appeals for Maximum Sentencing of
Premeditated Dog Killers", THEN PASS IT ON!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/779161782
This petition is time sensitive, ie...ending July 5th, 2006. These men
are to appear in court on July 11.
On May 31, 2006, two young pit bulls were found dead on a small path
near the town's firing range.
They had been shot 37 times.
With two high-powered rifles in the back of their car, two men drove
their victims to a desolate dirt road at the edge of a wooded area of Cape
Cod. Then, police said, Todd A. Soderberg and Keith B. Kynock let their
victims go, watching them flee for safety, 40 feet, then 50 feet down the road,
before the two lowered their rifles and opened fire. After allegedly firing
37 rounds, their victims lay dead, their bodies shattered from the rifle blasts.
''This was an execution,'' Barnstable police Sgt. Sean Sweeney said.
''This was not a humane act in any way.''
We are not only outraged at this cowardly act of premeditated brutal
and cold blooded murder, but that they pleaded NOT guilty! Aside from the
weapons charges, the items found in one vehicle denotes these men had
other intentions besides the premeditated murder of the two Pit Bulls.
We, the People, respectfully ask that each man be convicted on two counts of
felony and serve the maximum allowed by the laws of MA.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION "Public Appeals for Maximum Sentencing of
Premeditated Dog Killers", THEN PASS IT ON!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/779161782
This petition is time sensitive, ie...ending July 5th, 2006. These men
are to appear in court on July 11.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
HSUS Has Filed a Notice of Intent to Sue Hudson Valley Foie Gras for More Than 900 Documented Violations of the Federal Clean Water Act
Excellent move. This not only exposes the cruelty of Foie Gras, but also how it touches on the environment.
For those who don’t know, foie gras is essentially the liver from a dead duck who was force-fed via a tube overly large quantities of foods in order to increase the liver beyond its usual size. As you might imagine it’s an extremely painful process. So, essentially, it’s hell on earth for them, and then they’re slaughtered. Quite a life.
More information on foie gras can be found at: http://www.nofoiegras.org/
Article:
Foie Gras Claim Alleges 900 Violations Of Clear Water Act
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/
articles/060606FoieGrasClaim.html
WASHINGTON--The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has filed a notice of intent to sue Hudson Valley Foie Gras for more than 900 documented violations of the federal Clean Water Act. Such notice is required under the Clean Water Act before suit may be filed in federal court.
Last month, the State of New York granted Hudson Valley Foie Gras more than $400,000 in taxpayer funds to expand its facility that violently force-feeds birds to produce foie gras-a paté made from the diseased livers of ducks and geese. State officials publicly defended that decision by claiming that the factory farm is in compliance with all applicable state laws. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/
articles/052706InhumanePractice.html
However, in the legal notice filed Tuesday with Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the HSUS documents Hudson Valley Foie Gras's alleged longstanding track record of polluting the state's waters in violation of the Clean Water Act. According to the State's own records compiled from Hudson Valley's monitoring reports, the facility has allegedly committed more than 900 known violations of federal and state environmental laws since 2001, including illegal discharges of chlorine, fecal coliform, and ammonia into the Middle Mongaup River. Since the incidents are self-reported, the factory farm may have also caused other unreported discharges and violations.
"The State of New York apparently thinks that more than 900 violations of the Clean Water Act constitute full compliance with applicable law," stated Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president of Animal Protection Litigation for The HSUS. "It's inexcusable for the State to be funding a facility that not only cruelly force-feeds animals, but also flouts federal and state environmental laws."
The production of foie gras is one of the most notorious practices in the animal agribusiness industry. To enlarge the birds' livers, producers force-feed them for two to four weeks, shoving a pipe down their throats two or three times each day. This can cause painful bruising, lacerations, sores, and organ rupture. The birds' livers become diseased and can enlarge more than ten times the normal size, making it difficult for the birds to move comfortably. Often, the birds are intensively confined in filthy warehouses.
In 2005, Assemblyman Jack McEneny (D-Albany) introduced a bill that would ban the practice of force-feeding ducks and geese in New York. Due to animal welfare concerns, California and more than a dozen countries have banned the production of foie gras, and Chicago recently banned its sale.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization with 9.5 million members and constituents. The HSUS is a mainstream voice for animals, with active programs in companion animals, disaster preparedness and response, wildlife and habitat protection, animals in research, equine protection and farm animal welfare. The HSUS protects all animals through education, investigation, litigation, legislation, advocacy and field work. The non-profit organization is based in Washington and has field representatives and offices across the country. The organization is on the web at www.hsus.org.
For those who don’t know, foie gras is essentially the liver from a dead duck who was force-fed via a tube overly large quantities of foods in order to increase the liver beyond its usual size. As you might imagine it’s an extremely painful process. So, essentially, it’s hell on earth for them, and then they’re slaughtered. Quite a life.
More information on foie gras can be found at: http://www.nofoiegras.org/
Article:
Foie Gras Claim Alleges 900 Violations Of Clear Water Act
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/
articles/060606FoieGrasClaim.html
WASHINGTON--The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has filed a notice of intent to sue Hudson Valley Foie Gras for more than 900 documented violations of the federal Clean Water Act. Such notice is required under the Clean Water Act before suit may be filed in federal court.
Last month, the State of New York granted Hudson Valley Foie Gras more than $400,000 in taxpayer funds to expand its facility that violently force-feeds birds to produce foie gras-a paté made from the diseased livers of ducks and geese. State officials publicly defended that decision by claiming that the factory farm is in compliance with all applicable state laws. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/
articles/052706InhumanePractice.html
However, in the legal notice filed Tuesday with Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the HSUS documents Hudson Valley Foie Gras's alleged longstanding track record of polluting the state's waters in violation of the Clean Water Act. According to the State's own records compiled from Hudson Valley's monitoring reports, the facility has allegedly committed more than 900 known violations of federal and state environmental laws since 2001, including illegal discharges of chlorine, fecal coliform, and ammonia into the Middle Mongaup River. Since the incidents are self-reported, the factory farm may have also caused other unreported discharges and violations.
"The State of New York apparently thinks that more than 900 violations of the Clean Water Act constitute full compliance with applicable law," stated Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president of Animal Protection Litigation for The HSUS. "It's inexcusable for the State to be funding a facility that not only cruelly force-feeds animals, but also flouts federal and state environmental laws."
The production of foie gras is one of the most notorious practices in the animal agribusiness industry. To enlarge the birds' livers, producers force-feed them for two to four weeks, shoving a pipe down their throats two or three times each day. This can cause painful bruising, lacerations, sores, and organ rupture. The birds' livers become diseased and can enlarge more than ten times the normal size, making it difficult for the birds to move comfortably. Often, the birds are intensively confined in filthy warehouses.
In 2005, Assemblyman Jack McEneny (D-Albany) introduced a bill that would ban the practice of force-feeding ducks and geese in New York. Due to animal welfare concerns, California and more than a dozen countries have banned the production of foie gras, and Chicago recently banned its sale.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization with 9.5 million members and constituents. The HSUS is a mainstream voice for animals, with active programs in companion animals, disaster preparedness and response, wildlife and habitat protection, animals in research, equine protection and farm animal welfare. The HSUS protects all animals through education, investigation, litigation, legislation, advocacy and field work. The non-profit organization is based in Washington and has field representatives and offices across the country. The organization is on the web at www.hsus.org.
Protesters Have Frustrated an Attempt to Transport Eight Elephants from Thailand to Australian Zoos
An interesting fight. Again, raising awarnedness that the issues of zoos affects all countries.
Article:
Thai protests stop elephant move
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5054468.stm
Protesters have frustrated an attempt to transport eight elephants from Thailand to Australian zoos.
Activists staged a blockade for almost 24 hours at a quarantine centre in Kanchanaburi in western Thailand, where the animals are being kept.
The protesters say the Asian elephants, which are an endangered species, will suffer if kept in captivity.
But an Australian zoo official said the transfer was part of a joint deal with Thailand to help conserve wildlife.
"I am perplexed and surprised that this would happen, given that we had complete agreement between our governments and have been so fully committed to our long-term relationship to contribute to vital wildlife conservation projects in Thailand," said Guy Cooper, head of the Consortium of Australasian Zoos.
I haven't slept a wink, but I'm not giving up
Soraida Salwala, activist
But activists in both countries say the elephants will suffer and should not be moved.
"Keeping elephants in zoos is simply cruel," said Hugh Wirth, president of Australia's Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Soraida Salwala, founder of the Thai group Friends of the Asian Elephant, said the animals would suffer in the confines of the zoos and that the programme would not help to conserve the species.
Long delays
There have been protests in both Thailand and Australia
The transfer had already been held up for more than a year as animal rights groups fought against the move.
However, an Australian tribunal approved the transfer in February as long as certain conditions were met, such as appropriate flooring.
Mr Cooper said the zoos in Sydney and Melbourne had been renovated accordingly.
Taronga Zoo in Sydney had spent A$40m ($30m) on a new enclosure with hot and cold bathing areas, an elephant exercise area, waterfalls and ponds and specially designed "sleeping mounds".
Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell has said the breeding program would help to ensure the survival of the species.
Mr Campbell said that with fewer than 50,000 Asian elephants remaining in the wild, "every attempt must be made to ensure the survival of the species, including through captive breeding programs," AP news agency reported.
Article:
Thai protests stop elephant move
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5054468.stm
Protesters have frustrated an attempt to transport eight elephants from Thailand to Australian zoos.
Activists staged a blockade for almost 24 hours at a quarantine centre in Kanchanaburi in western Thailand, where the animals are being kept.
The protesters say the Asian elephants, which are an endangered species, will suffer if kept in captivity.
But an Australian zoo official said the transfer was part of a joint deal with Thailand to help conserve wildlife.
"I am perplexed and surprised that this would happen, given that we had complete agreement between our governments and have been so fully committed to our long-term relationship to contribute to vital wildlife conservation projects in Thailand," said Guy Cooper, head of the Consortium of Australasian Zoos.
I haven't slept a wink, but I'm not giving up
Soraida Salwala, activist
But activists in both countries say the elephants will suffer and should not be moved.
"Keeping elephants in zoos is simply cruel," said Hugh Wirth, president of Australia's Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Soraida Salwala, founder of the Thai group Friends of the Asian Elephant, said the animals would suffer in the confines of the zoos and that the programme would not help to conserve the species.
Long delays
There have been protests in both Thailand and Australia
The transfer had already been held up for more than a year as animal rights groups fought against the move.
However, an Australian tribunal approved the transfer in February as long as certain conditions were met, such as appropriate flooring.
Mr Cooper said the zoos in Sydney and Melbourne had been renovated accordingly.
Taronga Zoo in Sydney had spent A$40m ($30m) on a new enclosure with hot and cold bathing areas, an elephant exercise area, waterfalls and ponds and specially designed "sleeping mounds".
Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell has said the breeding program would help to ensure the survival of the species.
Mr Campbell said that with fewer than 50,000 Asian elephants remaining in the wild, "every attempt must be made to ensure the survival of the species, including through captive breeding programs," AP news agency reported.
Asia/ Film Reveals the Drama of Tibet's Poacher War
Yes, unfortunately poaching is also a problem in Tibet.
Article:
Asia/ Film reveals the drama of Tibet's poacher war
http://www.asahi.com/english/
06/07/2006
BY AKIRA KUDOCHI, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
Director Lu Chuan's latest film, "Kekexili: Mountain Patrol," is a far cry from his suspense-filled first effort, "The Missing Gun," released in 2002.
His newest movie is quasi-documentary. It's a plea to save the endangered Tibetan antelope--but he fears that poaching continues to reduce the wild herds across the rugged region.
"Local residents can't survive without poaching. They rely on antelope fur to make a living," the 35-year-old Chinese director said on a recent visit to Tokyo.
"Tibetan antelope furs fetch a high price. They use it for luxurious coats and other items," he explained.
The director says Tibet's low standard of living forces many people into poaching.
Lu's film, released in China in 2004, is based on the true story of two volunteer mountain rangers who died while battling poachers in the Kekexili area on the Tibetan Plateau. It opened in Japan over the weekend.
With his second film, Lu decided he wanted to tackle a more powerful theme.
He read a report of how poachers had murdered one leader of the rangers who had interfered with their antelope hunts. The second leader also died in similar circumstances.
"Why did they risk their lives to protect Tibetan antelopes? I wanted to find out by making this movie. I wanted to shoot a drama of human life," Lu said.
Lu and his film crew spent six months on the low-oxygen plateau, which sits 4,700 meters above sea level. Actors re-enacted scenes along the same route followed by the rangers. Real rangers advised on the events that took place amid the rugged terrain.
The movie has raised awareness of the need to protect Tibetan antelopes.
The government passed several measures to protect the animals, and today, the herds are gradually recovering.
Still, Lu said, "Poaching has not yet been eradicated."(IHT/Asahi: June 7,2006)
Article:
Asia/ Film reveals the drama of Tibet's poacher war
http://www.asahi.com/english/
06/07/2006
BY AKIRA KUDOCHI, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
Director Lu Chuan's latest film, "Kekexili: Mountain Patrol," is a far cry from his suspense-filled first effort, "The Missing Gun," released in 2002.
His newest movie is quasi-documentary. It's a plea to save the endangered Tibetan antelope--but he fears that poaching continues to reduce the wild herds across the rugged region.
"Local residents can't survive without poaching. They rely on antelope fur to make a living," the 35-year-old Chinese director said on a recent visit to Tokyo.
"Tibetan antelope furs fetch a high price. They use it for luxurious coats and other items," he explained.
The director says Tibet's low standard of living forces many people into poaching.
Lu's film, released in China in 2004, is based on the true story of two volunteer mountain rangers who died while battling poachers in the Kekexili area on the Tibetan Plateau. It opened in Japan over the weekend.
With his second film, Lu decided he wanted to tackle a more powerful theme.
He read a report of how poachers had murdered one leader of the rangers who had interfered with their antelope hunts. The second leader also died in similar circumstances.
"Why did they risk their lives to protect Tibetan antelopes? I wanted to find out by making this movie. I wanted to shoot a drama of human life," Lu said.
Lu and his film crew spent six months on the low-oxygen plateau, which sits 4,700 meters above sea level. Actors re-enacted scenes along the same route followed by the rangers. Real rangers advised on the events that took place amid the rugged terrain.
The movie has raised awareness of the need to protect Tibetan antelopes.
The government passed several measures to protect the animals, and today, the herds are gradually recovering.
Still, Lu said, "Poaching has not yet been eradicated."(IHT/Asahi: June 7,2006)
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Group Sues Woodland Park Zoo Over Treatment of Elephant Named Bamboo: Lawsuit Demands She Be Moved To Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee
This is an amazing legal tactic. Very sad to see that she has been in captivity since age 1 and that she hasn’t been accepted by any other elephant groups. The logical step would be to move her to the sanctuary.
Article:
Animal-rights group sues zoo over elephant
Bamboo should be sent to a sanctuary, plaintiffs say
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/272885_bamboo06.html
By KATHY MULADY
P-I REPORTER
Woodland Park Zoo has harmed a 39-year-old Asian elephant named Bamboo and should move her to an elephant sanctuary in Tennessee, an animal-rights group said in a lawsuit filed Monday.
In the King County Superior Court suit, the Northwest Animal Rights Network claims that the zoo has failed to provide Bamboo space for roaming, foraging and bonding with other elephants.
"We just received it, it is going to our legal counsel," Gigi Allianic, a zoo spokeswoman, said of the suit. "We can't discuss it right now."
Bamboo, who had lived at Woodland Park Zoo since her arrival from Thailand when she was a year old, was transferred last summer to Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma because she wasn't getting along with the other elephants at Woodland Park, especially Hansa, the 5-year-old elephant born there.
But zoo officials announced recently that Bamboo would be returning to Seattle soon because the other elephants in Tacoma haven't accepted her.
Animal-rights activists and two Seattle residents representing city taxpayers filed the lawsuit, saying it is time for Bamboo to move to the 2,700-acre sanctuary in Tennessee. The city owns the zoo grounds and buildings and provides financial support for the zoo.
The lawsuit also alleges that the zoo and the city have violated city, state and federal laws in their care of Bamboo.
Diana Kantor, a member of the animal-rights group, said they were hoping to persuade zoo and city leaders to move Bamboo to the sanctuary without filing a lawsuit.
"We worked hard for a resolution, but got nowhere with the zoo or city; finally, we had to take the next step," Kantor said.
In March, Woodland Park Deputy Director Bruce Bohmke said zoo officials were evaluating what to do in the long term with Bamboo. Alternatives included keeping her indefinitely at Woodland Park or moving her to a suitable zoo that would best serve her interests.
Bohmke said at the time that sending Bamboo to an elephant sanctuary was not an option. He said the sanctuary isn't appropriate for an elephant in the care of an accredited zoo at which conservation and education are key elements.
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is Sally Gannett, who as a youngster won a contest to name the elephant. "I feel responsible for Bamboo and want to help her get to the better life that she deserves," Gannett said.
Article:
Animal-rights group sues zoo over elephant
Bamboo should be sent to a sanctuary, plaintiffs say
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/272885_bamboo06.html
By KATHY MULADY
P-I REPORTER
Woodland Park Zoo has harmed a 39-year-old Asian elephant named Bamboo and should move her to an elephant sanctuary in Tennessee, an animal-rights group said in a lawsuit filed Monday.
In the King County Superior Court suit, the Northwest Animal Rights Network claims that the zoo has failed to provide Bamboo space for roaming, foraging and bonding with other elephants.
"We just received it, it is going to our legal counsel," Gigi Allianic, a zoo spokeswoman, said of the suit. "We can't discuss it right now."
Bamboo, who had lived at Woodland Park Zoo since her arrival from Thailand when she was a year old, was transferred last summer to Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma because she wasn't getting along with the other elephants at Woodland Park, especially Hansa, the 5-year-old elephant born there.
But zoo officials announced recently that Bamboo would be returning to Seattle soon because the other elephants in Tacoma haven't accepted her.
Animal-rights activists and two Seattle residents representing city taxpayers filed the lawsuit, saying it is time for Bamboo to move to the 2,700-acre sanctuary in Tennessee. The city owns the zoo grounds and buildings and provides financial support for the zoo.
The lawsuit also alleges that the zoo and the city have violated city, state and federal laws in their care of Bamboo.
Diana Kantor, a member of the animal-rights group, said they were hoping to persuade zoo and city leaders to move Bamboo to the sanctuary without filing a lawsuit.
"We worked hard for a resolution, but got nowhere with the zoo or city; finally, we had to take the next step," Kantor said.
In March, Woodland Park Deputy Director Bruce Bohmke said zoo officials were evaluating what to do in the long term with Bamboo. Alternatives included keeping her indefinitely at Woodland Park or moving her to a suitable zoo that would best serve her interests.
Bohmke said at the time that sending Bamboo to an elephant sanctuary was not an option. He said the sanctuary isn't appropriate for an elephant in the care of an accredited zoo at which conservation and education are key elements.
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit is Sally Gannett, who as a youngster won a contest to name the elephant. "I feel responsible for Bamboo and want to help her get to the better life that she deserves," Gannett said.
Hell Freezes Over: Fudan University in China Seeks To Set Up City's First Animal Ethics Committee to Address the Welfare of Lab Animals
If this is true, and not just pr, then it’s a good FIRST step. There is still much to do. But, this is a good sign in a county notorious for its horrible treatment of animals.
See this past posting for proof of China’s horrible animal rights record. http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/crash-
course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html
Article:
Fudan's panel to safeguard rights of laboratory animals
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/06/03/281839/
Fudan__039_s_panel_to_safeguard_rights_of_laboratory_
animals.htm
Yan Zhen
2006-06-03
FUDAN University has set up the city's first animal ethics committee to protect the welfare and rights of laboratory animals, university officials said yesterday.
Researchers and teachers must apply in advance to the animal ethics committee and receive written approval before conducting experiments and research at Fudan's pharmaceutical college.
The decision was effective June 1.
Concerned medical students and animal rights activists have urged the university to build a memorial to the many animals that have suffered and died for science in work on campus.
A similar committee has been set up for animal research in Beijing.
Those involved in experiments and animal care are expected to receive training in appropriate animal treatment that meets an international code of ethics.
Standards include giving animals enough living space, never starving or dehydrating them and killing them painlessly when necessary.
Those who violate the ethics code will be warned and could forfeit research rights, officials said.
"The organization is set up to regulate the ethical treatment of laboratory animals and bring the country's practice in line with international codes," said Cheng Nengneng, the committee director.
Medical research programs, especially pharmaceutical experiments, often involve animals - usually rats, mice, rabbits, dogs and monkeys. Thousands of rats and mice, dozens of dogs and less than 10 monkeys are used in Fudan's research programs each year, officials said.
However, lack of standards for animal treatment has put many researchers into an embarrassing position. Several professors' thesis were rejected by international academic journals as they were not certified by an animal ethics committee.
"The lack of animal protection organizations and regulations even hurt our communication with counterparts in the world," Cheng said.
The suffering of laboratory animals and separate maltreatment scandals have been reported in recent years. An online video showed a high-heeled women in Heilongjiang Province stomping kittens to death in March.
Cruelty to animals has caused indignation and raised awareness in a country where pets are increasingly popular.
See this past posting for proof of China’s horrible animal rights record. http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/crash-
course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html
Article:
Fudan's panel to safeguard rights of laboratory animals
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/art/2006/06/03/281839/
Fudan__039_s_panel_to_safeguard_rights_of_laboratory_
animals.htm
Yan Zhen
2006-06-03
FUDAN University has set up the city's first animal ethics committee to protect the welfare and rights of laboratory animals, university officials said yesterday.
Researchers and teachers must apply in advance to the animal ethics committee and receive written approval before conducting experiments and research at Fudan's pharmaceutical college.
The decision was effective June 1.
Concerned medical students and animal rights activists have urged the university to build a memorial to the many animals that have suffered and died for science in work on campus.
A similar committee has been set up for animal research in Beijing.
Those involved in experiments and animal care are expected to receive training in appropriate animal treatment that meets an international code of ethics.
Standards include giving animals enough living space, never starving or dehydrating them and killing them painlessly when necessary.
Those who violate the ethics code will be warned and could forfeit research rights, officials said.
"The organization is set up to regulate the ethical treatment of laboratory animals and bring the country's practice in line with international codes," said Cheng Nengneng, the committee director.
Medical research programs, especially pharmaceutical experiments, often involve animals - usually rats, mice, rabbits, dogs and monkeys. Thousands of rats and mice, dozens of dogs and less than 10 monkeys are used in Fudan's research programs each year, officials said.
However, lack of standards for animal treatment has put many researchers into an embarrassing position. Several professors' thesis were rejected by international academic journals as they were not certified by an animal ethics committee.
"The lack of animal protection organizations and regulations even hurt our communication with counterparts in the world," Cheng said.
The suffering of laboratory animals and separate maltreatment scandals have been reported in recent years. An online video showed a high-heeled women in Heilongjiang Province stomping kittens to death in March.
Cruelty to animals has caused indignation and raised awareness in a country where pets are increasingly popular.
Group Shows Cruelty of Zoos Has No Boarders: Protests at Manila Zoo
Good article for a couple of reasons. One, it shows the movement exposing zoos in crossing oceans and boarders. And two, it gives a few good insights as to why zoos are bad. Here’s a quick quote from the article below:
“Animals in the wild spend their entire lives with their close-knit families. But animals in zoos are separated from their families as babies and are sentenced to an eternity of boredom, crippling loneliness, and even abuse, leading to self-mutilation and other abnormal and self-destructive behaviors, called “zoochosis.”” Here is a definition of zoochosis - http://www.bornfree.org.uk/zoocheck/zoochosis.htm
Article:
Animal rights group bats for freedom of zoo creatures
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2006/06/
06/feat/animal.rights.
group.bats.for.freedom.of.zoo.creatures.html
WEARING prison suits and monkey masks and holding a banner and signs that read “Zoos: Cruel Animal Prisons,” members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) Asia-Pacific will protest outside the Manila Zoo. The protest comes as Filipinos prepare to mark their 108th year of independence from Spanish colonizers on June 12, and Peta is urging the first democracy in Asia to again lead the way by becoming the first zoo-free country in the region:
Why is Peta in an uproar? Animals in the wild spend their entire lives with their close-knit families. But animals in zoos are separated from their families as babies and are sentenced to an eternity of boredom, crippling loneliness, and even abuse, leading to self-mutilation and other abnormal and self-destructive behaviors, called “zoochosis.”
“Zoos claim to educate people and preserve species, but they fall short on both counts,” says Peta Asia-Pacific Campaigns Manager Rochelle Regodon. “Zoos present us with a distorted view of wildlife. Even the biggest zoo is nothing compared to the vastness of the wild. Visitors don’t see normal animal behavior because their natural needs—space, exercise, privacy, and mental stimulation —aren’t met. We’re better off watching nature documentaries, reading about animals in books or on Web sites, or traveling to their natural habitats.”
The Manila Zoo has an elephant isolated in a concrete enclosure with little grass. Elephants can walk up to 48 kilometers every day in the wild—but the entire zoo measures 5.5 hectares, or 0.055 square kilometers.
“Animals in zoos are serving a lifetime sentence with no parole,” says Regodon. “Let’s just leave them in the wild and use zoos as sanctuaries for animals rescued from circuses, marine parks, and other exploitative forms of entertainment.”
Peta Asia-Pacific is an affiliate of Peta, the world’s largest animal rights organization, with more than 1 million members and supporters worldwide.
“Animals in the wild spend their entire lives with their close-knit families. But animals in zoos are separated from their families as babies and are sentenced to an eternity of boredom, crippling loneliness, and even abuse, leading to self-mutilation and other abnormal and self-destructive behaviors, called “zoochosis.”” Here is a definition of zoochosis - http://www.bornfree.org.uk/zoocheck/zoochosis.htm
Article:
Animal rights group bats for freedom of zoo creatures
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2006/06/
06/feat/animal.rights.
group.bats.for.freedom.of.zoo.creatures.html
WEARING prison suits and monkey masks and holding a banner and signs that read “Zoos: Cruel Animal Prisons,” members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) Asia-Pacific will protest outside the Manila Zoo. The protest comes as Filipinos prepare to mark their 108th year of independence from Spanish colonizers on June 12, and Peta is urging the first democracy in Asia to again lead the way by becoming the first zoo-free country in the region:
Why is Peta in an uproar? Animals in the wild spend their entire lives with their close-knit families. But animals in zoos are separated from their families as babies and are sentenced to an eternity of boredom, crippling loneliness, and even abuse, leading to self-mutilation and other abnormal and self-destructive behaviors, called “zoochosis.”
“Zoos claim to educate people and preserve species, but they fall short on both counts,” says Peta Asia-Pacific Campaigns Manager Rochelle Regodon. “Zoos present us with a distorted view of wildlife. Even the biggest zoo is nothing compared to the vastness of the wild. Visitors don’t see normal animal behavior because their natural needs—space, exercise, privacy, and mental stimulation —aren’t met. We’re better off watching nature documentaries, reading about animals in books or on Web sites, or traveling to their natural habitats.”
The Manila Zoo has an elephant isolated in a concrete enclosure with little grass. Elephants can walk up to 48 kilometers every day in the wild—but the entire zoo measures 5.5 hectares, or 0.055 square kilometers.
“Animals in zoos are serving a lifetime sentence with no parole,” says Regodon. “Let’s just leave them in the wild and use zoos as sanctuaries for animals rescued from circuses, marine parks, and other exploitative forms of entertainment.”
Peta Asia-Pacific is an affiliate of Peta, the world’s largest animal rights organization, with more than 1 million members and supporters worldwide.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Asian Elephants Used In the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus at Heart of Trial: Groups Prove Violations of Endangered Species Act
Asian Elephants Used In the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus at Heart of Trial: Groups Fight to Prove Various Violations of Endangered Species Act
This is a ground breaking case. If successful, it could mean an end to the use of elephants in circuses. Here is a quick synopsis of the argument. The story can be found below it:
“They allege that the use of sharpened hooks by trainers, the routine use of chains, the separation of baby elephants from their mothers and other common circus practices add up to an egregious violation of the Endangered Species Act, which covers the Asian elephant and prohibits harm to it. The suit's goal is a court order halting these practices, which the activists believe would force Ringling to give up elephants altogether.
"It's impossible to have these animals in captivity the way they are without it leading to abuse — traveling in chains in boxcars up to 50 weeks, performing tricks because of force and intimidation," said Michelle Thew of the Animal Protection Institute, another plaintiff.”
Article:
Ringling Bros. battles to keep elephants
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid
=519&e=1&u=/ap/20060603/ap_on_re_us/ringling_s_
elephants_1
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Sat Jun 3, 2:02 PM ET
NEW YORK - With their colorful headgear and repertoire of tricks, they're top-billed stars of The Greatest Show on Earth.
ADVERTISEMENT
But away from the arena, the Asian elephants used in the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus are at the heart of perhaps the most bitter animal-care fight around, one that's dragged through court for six years already and is inching toward a trial.
It's a heavyweight bout, pitting America's biggest circus against some of the most influential animal-welfare groups. Ringling insists that its elephants receive state-of-the-art treatment and it's determined to keep them in its cast.
Its adversaries — a group including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Welfare Institute — argue vehemently that circus life is inherently cruel to the elephants.
They allege that the use of sharpened hooks by trainers, the routine use of chains, the separation of baby elephants from their mothers and other common circus practices add up to an egregious violation of the Endangered Species Act, which covers the Asian elephant and prohibits harm to it. The suit's goal is a court order halting these practices, which the activists believe would force Ringling to give up elephants altogether.
"It's impossible to have these animals in captivity the way they are without it leading to abuse — traveling in chains in boxcars up to 50 weeks, performing tricks because of force and intimidation," said Michelle Thew of the Animal Protection Institute, another plaintiff.
Ringling shows no signs of bowing to pressure, and has become more outspoken in defending itself since the first-of-its-kind suit was filed in 2000.
"We train animals through reward, repetition and reinforcement — based on science," said former zookeeper Bruce Read, Ringling's vice president for animal stewardship. "Punishment is not used in the circus."
While the lawsuit protests the use of sharp-ended bullhooks to prod the elephants, Read defends them as "a very accepted tool" developed over many centuries to control the animals humanely. Activists say the implements — which resemble long fire pokers — often inflict scar-causing wounds.
Government regulations permit use of chains. Read said elephants are chained in place at night to keep them from foraging their companions' food, and during train rides to prevent sudden weight shifts that might derail the freight car.
More generally, Read said circus life — including 50 weeks a year on the road — is not stressful to the elephants because the social groups around them, animal and human, are stable. He said young elephants aren't separated from their mothers until trainers are confident of their maturity.
"The Asian elephant has been semi-domesticated for centuries," said Read, citing its use in warfare, farming and various ceremonies. "Our circus brings them to areas where people don't see such animals very often. That's not something we should deprive our future generations of."
The first phase of the lawsuit lasted three years, with Feld Entertainment Inc. — Ringling's parent company — finally losing a bid to have the case dismissed by a federal court in Washington, D.C. Since 2003, the two sides have engaged in a slow-moving battle over the plaintiffs' access to thousands of Ringling veterinary documents and in-house videos.
"They repeatedly claim that their elephants are healthy and well-treated, yet when we ask for documents that would prove that, they fight us tooth and nail in court," said attorney Jonathan Lovvorn, the Humane Society's vice president for animal protection litigation. He expects the case will go to trial next year.
The lawsuit has coincided with protest campaigns urging a boycott of circuses that feature animals at a time when others, such as Cirque du Soleil, have developed animal-free productions. Fifteen U.S. municipalities, but no major cities, ban animal circuses.
Virginia-based Feld Entertainment is privately held and doesn't disclose circus revenue figures, thus depriving critics of any evidence that the protests might be taking a toll.
"Animal rights groups find they get more attention for their cause when they go after The Greatest Show On Earth," said Feld spokeswoman Amy McWethy. "But according to our research and customer feedback surveys, activists have had no impact on the decision to attend."
She said annual attendance at Ringling's circuses is more than 10 million, and audience surveys rate elephants as by far the favorite attraction.
Of Ringling's 55 elephants, up to 20 are touring at any one time in the three circus units. Most of the others live at Ringling's Center for Elephant Conservation, a $5 million, 200-acre facility in central Florida that doubles as retirement home and breeding center.
The principal referee in the dispute over Ringling's elephants is the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Numerous times, agency inspectors have found Ringling in noncompliance of the Animal Welfare Act, but the circus — to the dismay of activists — each time was able to take steps that spared it from being formally classified as a violator.
USDA spokesman Darby Holladay said four investigations into Ringling's animal care remain open, but he wouldn't provide details. Activists say at least two of the investigations involve deaths of young elephants at the Florida conservation center.
Ted Friend, an animal science professor at Texas A&M, said he and his students have traveled with Ringling for research projects and have never observed "overt cruelty" by trainers or handlers. Friend attributes the anti-Ringling campaign to competition among animal-welfare groups for publicity and contributions.
"This isn't about fundraising — it's about getting the truth to the public," retorted Michelle Thew. "Ringling Bros. is going to lose not only in court but in the court of public opinion."
___
On the Net:
Animal Welfare Institute:
http://www.awionline.org/wildlife/elephants/rbsuit.htm
This is a ground breaking case. If successful, it could mean an end to the use of elephants in circuses. Here is a quick synopsis of the argument. The story can be found below it:
“They allege that the use of sharpened hooks by trainers, the routine use of chains, the separation of baby elephants from their mothers and other common circus practices add up to an egregious violation of the Endangered Species Act, which covers the Asian elephant and prohibits harm to it. The suit's goal is a court order halting these practices, which the activists believe would force Ringling to give up elephants altogether.
"It's impossible to have these animals in captivity the way they are without it leading to abuse — traveling in chains in boxcars up to 50 weeks, performing tricks because of force and intimidation," said Michelle Thew of the Animal Protection Institute, another plaintiff.”
Article:
Ringling Bros. battles to keep elephants
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid
=519&e=1&u=/ap/20060603/ap_on_re_us/ringling_s_
elephants_1
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Sat Jun 3, 2:02 PM ET
NEW YORK - With their colorful headgear and repertoire of tricks, they're top-billed stars of The Greatest Show on Earth.
ADVERTISEMENT
But away from the arena, the Asian elephants used in the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus are at the heart of perhaps the most bitter animal-care fight around, one that's dragged through court for six years already and is inching toward a trial.
It's a heavyweight bout, pitting America's biggest circus against some of the most influential animal-welfare groups. Ringling insists that its elephants receive state-of-the-art treatment and it's determined to keep them in its cast.
Its adversaries — a group including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Animal Welfare Institute — argue vehemently that circus life is inherently cruel to the elephants.
They allege that the use of sharpened hooks by trainers, the routine use of chains, the separation of baby elephants from their mothers and other common circus practices add up to an egregious violation of the Endangered Species Act, which covers the Asian elephant and prohibits harm to it. The suit's goal is a court order halting these practices, which the activists believe would force Ringling to give up elephants altogether.
"It's impossible to have these animals in captivity the way they are without it leading to abuse — traveling in chains in boxcars up to 50 weeks, performing tricks because of force and intimidation," said Michelle Thew of the Animal Protection Institute, another plaintiff.
Ringling shows no signs of bowing to pressure, and has become more outspoken in defending itself since the first-of-its-kind suit was filed in 2000.
"We train animals through reward, repetition and reinforcement — based on science," said former zookeeper Bruce Read, Ringling's vice president for animal stewardship. "Punishment is not used in the circus."
While the lawsuit protests the use of sharp-ended bullhooks to prod the elephants, Read defends them as "a very accepted tool" developed over many centuries to control the animals humanely. Activists say the implements — which resemble long fire pokers — often inflict scar-causing wounds.
Government regulations permit use of chains. Read said elephants are chained in place at night to keep them from foraging their companions' food, and during train rides to prevent sudden weight shifts that might derail the freight car.
More generally, Read said circus life — including 50 weeks a year on the road — is not stressful to the elephants because the social groups around them, animal and human, are stable. He said young elephants aren't separated from their mothers until trainers are confident of their maturity.
"The Asian elephant has been semi-domesticated for centuries," said Read, citing its use in warfare, farming and various ceremonies. "Our circus brings them to areas where people don't see such animals very often. That's not something we should deprive our future generations of."
The first phase of the lawsuit lasted three years, with Feld Entertainment Inc. — Ringling's parent company — finally losing a bid to have the case dismissed by a federal court in Washington, D.C. Since 2003, the two sides have engaged in a slow-moving battle over the plaintiffs' access to thousands of Ringling veterinary documents and in-house videos.
"They repeatedly claim that their elephants are healthy and well-treated, yet when we ask for documents that would prove that, they fight us tooth and nail in court," said attorney Jonathan Lovvorn, the Humane Society's vice president for animal protection litigation. He expects the case will go to trial next year.
The lawsuit has coincided with protest campaigns urging a boycott of circuses that feature animals at a time when others, such as Cirque du Soleil, have developed animal-free productions. Fifteen U.S. municipalities, but no major cities, ban animal circuses.
Virginia-based Feld Entertainment is privately held and doesn't disclose circus revenue figures, thus depriving critics of any evidence that the protests might be taking a toll.
"Animal rights groups find they get more attention for their cause when they go after The Greatest Show On Earth," said Feld spokeswoman Amy McWethy. "But according to our research and customer feedback surveys, activists have had no impact on the decision to attend."
She said annual attendance at Ringling's circuses is more than 10 million, and audience surveys rate elephants as by far the favorite attraction.
Of Ringling's 55 elephants, up to 20 are touring at any one time in the three circus units. Most of the others live at Ringling's Center for Elephant Conservation, a $5 million, 200-acre facility in central Florida that doubles as retirement home and breeding center.
The principal referee in the dispute over Ringling's elephants is the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Numerous times, agency inspectors have found Ringling in noncompliance of the Animal Welfare Act, but the circus — to the dismay of activists — each time was able to take steps that spared it from being formally classified as a violator.
USDA spokesman Darby Holladay said four investigations into Ringling's animal care remain open, but he wouldn't provide details. Activists say at least two of the investigations involve deaths of young elephants at the Florida conservation center.
Ted Friend, an animal science professor at Texas A&M, said he and his students have traveled with Ringling for research projects and have never observed "overt cruelty" by trainers or handlers. Friend attributes the anti-Ringling campaign to competition among animal-welfare groups for publicity and contributions.
"This isn't about fundraising — it's about getting the truth to the public," retorted Michelle Thew. "Ringling Bros. is going to lose not only in court but in the court of public opinion."
___
On the Net:
Animal Welfare Institute:
http://www.awionline.org/wildlife/elephants/rbsuit.htm
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission Will Decide Whether to Move Forward On Easing the Manatee's Status from Endangered To Threatened
Pay Back to Friends in Business.
Not good, not good at all. Especially since the commission was appointed by Jeb Bush. And, as the article states below, this is not a change that is due to science, but instead “…a change long sought by boaters and waterfront developers.” I can see where this is going.
Article:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/
sfl-cwildlifejun05,0,3909628.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
State agency to consider whether to move manatees off endangered list
By David Fleshler
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted June 5 2006
The state wildlife commission will decide this week whether to revise the legal status of gopher tortoises and manatees, two species that have suffered over the past few decades as people crowded into Florida.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will vote Wednesday whether to proceed with a proposal to increase the gopher tortoise's status to threatened, which could begin to limit the state's practice of allowing developers to bury thousands of the animals alive. The commission, a board appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, will also decide whether to move forward on easing the manatee's status from endangered to threatened, a change long sought by boaters and waterfront developers.
Neither change will lead to immediate action. But the meeting, at the West Palm Beach Marriott, is expected to be contentious. Manatee advocates plan to attend to argue against the move, which they say will lead to less protection for the mammals. And animal-rights activists plan to be there to call for an end to the killing of tortoises.
For years the wildlife commission has issued permits allowing developers to crush or bury tortoises alive, provided they paid into a fund to buy and protect gopher tortoise habitat elsewhere in the state. But the commission's biologists say this system hasn't prevented the tortoise's decline, and they petitioned the commission to revise the tortoise's status to threatened. Since the European settlement of Florida, the gopher tortoise has lost about 69 percent of its habitat, according to a report by a state biological review panel, which recommended upgrading the tortoise's legal status.
The commission has received many letters from people horrified at news accounts of the live burial of tortoises, which have slow metabolism that allows them to survive for months before dying of thirst or starvation.
"To take a living animal and bury it, and allow it to die a slow, painful death is beyond cruel," said Steven Rosen, a Davie animal-rights activist who has filed suit to try to stop the practice. "How do they sleep at night?"
The vote Wednesday will have no immediate impact on the tortoise. But it would allow a team of biologists and state officials to prepare a management plan to help the species recover. State officials say the plan, expected to be completed in April, will propose ways to reduce the number of tortoises killed in construction projects, such as moving them to vacant habitat in the Panhandle and elsewhere. But they say there's a limit to how much the wildlife commission can do to stop tortoise killing, while respecting property rights.
"Nobody's happy that gopher tortoises are getting buried by bulldozers," said Henry Cabbage, spokesman for the wildlife commission. "But the agency's authority is not so broad that we can prohibit developers from developing land. It's an unpleasant reality gopher tortoises are getting buried, and that's something we care about. But the solution to this is very elusive. I really don't see what we could accomplish by becoming a nuisance to developers."
In a response to the state's biological review, Steve Godley, a biological consultant and representative of the Florida Home Builders Association, called the models in the biological report "poorly documented with many unstated assumptions" that didn't support the reclassification. But he wrote that the decline of tortoises could be virtually eliminated by improving the management of public lands and requiring that developers move tortoises to public and private lands.
The proposal to reclassify the manatee came in response to a petition from the Coastal Conservation Association of Florida, a recreational fishing group whose members were tired of having to endure a series of slow-speed zones to reach fishing spots. The proposal has the support of the boating and marine construction industries, which are struggling with manatee-inspired restrictions on the construction of slips, docks and other boating facilities.
The state's biological analysis supports the move, saying the species faces a low probability of extinction over the next 100 years. Since the 1970s, the report said, the manatee's population has steadily increased. But even though the report recommends removing the species' endangered tag, it recommends listing the manatee as a "threatened" species. The report says the manatee faces a 12 percent chance of declining by half over the next three generations and a 55 percent chance of losing one-fifth of its population over the next two generations.
The report said the largest known human source of manatee mortality is collisions with watercraft. Last year, ships and boats killed 80 manatees in Florida, up from 69 the year before.
Ted Forsgren, executive director of Coastal Conservation Authority, said he has no problem with legitimate speed zones that protect manatees. But he said many are unnecessary, particularly in light of the species' improved prospects. Reclassifying the manatee from endangered to threatened will lead to "a more objective examination of some of these different speed zones," he said.
"We're saltwater anglers, and we want to be able to have reasonable access to get into good fishing spots."
But environmentalists say the change reflects the political power of the boating industry, not any major change in the manatee's status. They say the reclassification results largely from the state's decision to alter its system for classifying imperiled species, a technical change that automatically knocks the manatee down a notch, creating the illusion that it is recovering. They say this will provide the state Legislature with an excuse to reduce the number of slow-speed zones and avoid funding programs to help manatees.
"We want them to be fully recovered, but that's not what this is about," said Pat Rose, director of government relations for the Save the Manatee Club. "This is a political reclassification that will lead to them being more imperiled, not less."
Not good, not good at all. Especially since the commission was appointed by Jeb Bush. And, as the article states below, this is not a change that is due to science, but instead “…a change long sought by boaters and waterfront developers.” I can see where this is going.
Article:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/
sfl-cwildlifejun05,0,3909628.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
State agency to consider whether to move manatees off endangered list
By David Fleshler
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted June 5 2006
The state wildlife commission will decide this week whether to revise the legal status of gopher tortoises and manatees, two species that have suffered over the past few decades as people crowded into Florida.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will vote Wednesday whether to proceed with a proposal to increase the gopher tortoise's status to threatened, which could begin to limit the state's practice of allowing developers to bury thousands of the animals alive. The commission, a board appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, will also decide whether to move forward on easing the manatee's status from endangered to threatened, a change long sought by boaters and waterfront developers.
Neither change will lead to immediate action. But the meeting, at the West Palm Beach Marriott, is expected to be contentious. Manatee advocates plan to attend to argue against the move, which they say will lead to less protection for the mammals. And animal-rights activists plan to be there to call for an end to the killing of tortoises.
For years the wildlife commission has issued permits allowing developers to crush or bury tortoises alive, provided they paid into a fund to buy and protect gopher tortoise habitat elsewhere in the state. But the commission's biologists say this system hasn't prevented the tortoise's decline, and they petitioned the commission to revise the tortoise's status to threatened. Since the European settlement of Florida, the gopher tortoise has lost about 69 percent of its habitat, according to a report by a state biological review panel, which recommended upgrading the tortoise's legal status.
The commission has received many letters from people horrified at news accounts of the live burial of tortoises, which have slow metabolism that allows them to survive for months before dying of thirst or starvation.
"To take a living animal and bury it, and allow it to die a slow, painful death is beyond cruel," said Steven Rosen, a Davie animal-rights activist who has filed suit to try to stop the practice. "How do they sleep at night?"
The vote Wednesday will have no immediate impact on the tortoise. But it would allow a team of biologists and state officials to prepare a management plan to help the species recover. State officials say the plan, expected to be completed in April, will propose ways to reduce the number of tortoises killed in construction projects, such as moving them to vacant habitat in the Panhandle and elsewhere. But they say there's a limit to how much the wildlife commission can do to stop tortoise killing, while respecting property rights.
"Nobody's happy that gopher tortoises are getting buried by bulldozers," said Henry Cabbage, spokesman for the wildlife commission. "But the agency's authority is not so broad that we can prohibit developers from developing land. It's an unpleasant reality gopher tortoises are getting buried, and that's something we care about. But the solution to this is very elusive. I really don't see what we could accomplish by becoming a nuisance to developers."
In a response to the state's biological review, Steve Godley, a biological consultant and representative of the Florida Home Builders Association, called the models in the biological report "poorly documented with many unstated assumptions" that didn't support the reclassification. But he wrote that the decline of tortoises could be virtually eliminated by improving the management of public lands and requiring that developers move tortoises to public and private lands.
The proposal to reclassify the manatee came in response to a petition from the Coastal Conservation Association of Florida, a recreational fishing group whose members were tired of having to endure a series of slow-speed zones to reach fishing spots. The proposal has the support of the boating and marine construction industries, which are struggling with manatee-inspired restrictions on the construction of slips, docks and other boating facilities.
The state's biological analysis supports the move, saying the species faces a low probability of extinction over the next 100 years. Since the 1970s, the report said, the manatee's population has steadily increased. But even though the report recommends removing the species' endangered tag, it recommends listing the manatee as a "threatened" species. The report says the manatee faces a 12 percent chance of declining by half over the next three generations and a 55 percent chance of losing one-fifth of its population over the next two generations.
The report said the largest known human source of manatee mortality is collisions with watercraft. Last year, ships and boats killed 80 manatees in Florida, up from 69 the year before.
Ted Forsgren, executive director of Coastal Conservation Authority, said he has no problem with legitimate speed zones that protect manatees. But he said many are unnecessary, particularly in light of the species' improved prospects. Reclassifying the manatee from endangered to threatened will lead to "a more objective examination of some of these different speed zones," he said.
"We're saltwater anglers, and we want to be able to have reasonable access to get into good fishing spots."
But environmentalists say the change reflects the political power of the boating industry, not any major change in the manatee's status. They say the reclassification results largely from the state's decision to alter its system for classifying imperiled species, a technical change that automatically knocks the manatee down a notch, creating the illusion that it is recovering. They say this will provide the state Legislature with an excuse to reduce the number of slow-speed zones and avoid funding programs to help manatees.
"We want them to be fully recovered, but that's not what this is about," said Pat Rose, director of government relations for the Save the Manatee Club. "This is a political reclassification that will lead to them being more imperiled, not less."
In Indian Zoos, Life Can Be Brutal and Short: Visitors to Indian Zoos Often Throw Stones at Animals, Many of Whom Are Already In Pain and Enclosed
As if the action in the title wasn’t bad enough, here are other offenses. It’s just mind boggling that people would want to be so cruel:
Elephants, were kept chained or shackled, nocturnal animals were kept in bright sunlight, aquatic animals were kept in inadequate water and teasing was rampant.
Giving the monkeys lit cigarettes, glass, pakoras.
Harassment by visitors, are common in urban centres around the country.
Pelting the crocodiles with stones on a daily basis.
Overcrowding - less than 40 keepers looking after 1,250 animals.
Reports of negligence are also common - two six-month-old jaguar cubs died this year after knocking over bottles of disinfectant and lapping up the contents while their keeper was cleaning their enclosure.
Many enclosures are concrete cells rather than anything remotely resembling the animals' natural habitat.
Article:
In Indian zoos, life can be brutal and short
http://au.news.yahoo.com/060605/19/z8vc.html
Sun Jun 4, 11:11 PM ET
NEW DELHI (AFP) - Visitors to Indian zoos often throw stones at animals, many of whom are already in pain and enclosed in filthy, concrete boxes, officials and animal rights groups say.
Deteriorating conditions prompted rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals last month to sue states running zoos and the Central Zoo Authority that oversees them.
"From August last year till March this year we compiled our own inventory of zoos," said PETA's director Anuradha Sawhney.
The group discovered animals, including elephants, were kept chained or shackled, nocturnal animals were kept in bright sunlight, aquatic animals were kept in inadequate water and teasing was rampant.
"You have visitors giving animals all kinds of things to eat, giving the monkeys lit cigarettes, glass, pakoras (vegetable fritters)," she said, adding that PETA was suing the bodies for inflicting "pain and suffering" on animals and noncompliance with local zoo regulations.
Zoo officials themselves acknowledge that such problems, particularly harassment by visitors, are common in urban centres around the country.
At the 131-year-old zoo in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata, many enclosures are concrete cells rather than anything remotely resembling the animals' natural habitat.
"We are aware that the animals and birds are not well in the cages and moats. Efforts are on minimizing their agony," Alipore Zoological Garden director Subir Chowdhury told AFP, adding that many cages were rusted and decrepit.
"We need more space to offer comfort to the animals."
Similar discoveries were made by animal welfare charity Zoocheck Canada in a report in December 2004.
Many cages at Mumbai's zoo, one of the oldest in the country, were extremely filthy, the Zoocheck report said.
The zoo, established in 1873, gave the impression of a "relic of a bygone age when animals were displayed for the lewd and vulgar curiosity of the public" and there was little space for the animals.
It called for the zoo, which attracts some 800,000 visitors a year, to be immediately shutdown.
Thirteen deer died in February after dogs entered an enclosure and caused a stampede. City officials have set up a committee to look at ways to improve conditions there.
At the New Delhi zoo, housed in the medieval-era Old Fort, conditions seem slightly better. An AFP reporter saw signs warning visitors not to tease the animals and many of them are housed in open spaces.
Yet, in spite of fans being placed around cramped indoor cages, the Himalayan black bears did not look comfortable. And a limping Palm Civet, a small mammal found in Asia and described as "arboreal" on the card on its cage, had no trees to climb.
Visitors, many of them from small towns outside the city, refrained from throwing objects at the animals. And one man warned his young daughter not to feed them, a sign that people's attitudes may be changing.
But visitor behavior is still a major problem, the zoo director told AFP. At least one man was observed urging his friend to throw his water bottle into a hippopotamus' mouth. The friend declined.
"We have to work against what we think the concept of a zoo should be," said D.N. Singh, who took over management of the zoo in August.
Singh said the zoo had been forced to erect barriers at eye-level to prevent visitors from pelting the crocodiles with stones on a daily basis.
Overcrowding is another problem, Singh said, with less than 40 keepers looking after 1,250 animals.
Reports of negligence are also common, with Singh saying two six-month-old jaguar cubs died this year after knocking over bottles of disinfectant and lapping up the contents while their keeper was cleaning their enclosure.
"It was an accident," Singh said sadly.
But Singh said the Indian media is sometimes hard on the zoo, with reports claiming authorities had no idea last month where one of its black bears had gone. In fact it had been mated and was pregnant and hiding, he said.
"We do have inherent problems," said Singh, but the zoo was trying to improve, most recently by creating a more natural habitat for its primates.
Such changes are what PETA's Sawhney is hoping to achieve through the lawsuit. But she said the best result would be closing all of India's zoos.
"I haven't been (to the New Delhi zoo) in the last few years but all zoos in India are bad," said Sawhney.
"If animals are not safe in zoos, why do you have them?"
Elephants, were kept chained or shackled, nocturnal animals were kept in bright sunlight, aquatic animals were kept in inadequate water and teasing was rampant.
Giving the monkeys lit cigarettes, glass, pakoras.
Harassment by visitors, are common in urban centres around the country.
Pelting the crocodiles with stones on a daily basis.
Overcrowding - less than 40 keepers looking after 1,250 animals.
Reports of negligence are also common - two six-month-old jaguar cubs died this year after knocking over bottles of disinfectant and lapping up the contents while their keeper was cleaning their enclosure.
Many enclosures are concrete cells rather than anything remotely resembling the animals' natural habitat.
Article:
In Indian zoos, life can be brutal and short
http://au.news.yahoo.com/060605/19/z8vc.html
Sun Jun 4, 11:11 PM ET
NEW DELHI (AFP) - Visitors to Indian zoos often throw stones at animals, many of whom are already in pain and enclosed in filthy, concrete boxes, officials and animal rights groups say.
Deteriorating conditions prompted rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals last month to sue states running zoos and the Central Zoo Authority that oversees them.
"From August last year till March this year we compiled our own inventory of zoos," said PETA's director Anuradha Sawhney.
The group discovered animals, including elephants, were kept chained or shackled, nocturnal animals were kept in bright sunlight, aquatic animals were kept in inadequate water and teasing was rampant.
"You have visitors giving animals all kinds of things to eat, giving the monkeys lit cigarettes, glass, pakoras (vegetable fritters)," she said, adding that PETA was suing the bodies for inflicting "pain and suffering" on animals and noncompliance with local zoo regulations.
Zoo officials themselves acknowledge that such problems, particularly harassment by visitors, are common in urban centres around the country.
At the 131-year-old zoo in the eastern Indian city of Kolkata, many enclosures are concrete cells rather than anything remotely resembling the animals' natural habitat.
"We are aware that the animals and birds are not well in the cages and moats. Efforts are on minimizing their agony," Alipore Zoological Garden director Subir Chowdhury told AFP, adding that many cages were rusted and decrepit.
"We need more space to offer comfort to the animals."
Similar discoveries were made by animal welfare charity Zoocheck Canada in a report in December 2004.
Many cages at Mumbai's zoo, one of the oldest in the country, were extremely filthy, the Zoocheck report said.
The zoo, established in 1873, gave the impression of a "relic of a bygone age when animals were displayed for the lewd and vulgar curiosity of the public" and there was little space for the animals.
It called for the zoo, which attracts some 800,000 visitors a year, to be immediately shutdown.
Thirteen deer died in February after dogs entered an enclosure and caused a stampede. City officials have set up a committee to look at ways to improve conditions there.
At the New Delhi zoo, housed in the medieval-era Old Fort, conditions seem slightly better. An AFP reporter saw signs warning visitors not to tease the animals and many of them are housed in open spaces.
Yet, in spite of fans being placed around cramped indoor cages, the Himalayan black bears did not look comfortable. And a limping Palm Civet, a small mammal found in Asia and described as "arboreal" on the card on its cage, had no trees to climb.
Visitors, many of them from small towns outside the city, refrained from throwing objects at the animals. And one man warned his young daughter not to feed them, a sign that people's attitudes may be changing.
But visitor behavior is still a major problem, the zoo director told AFP. At least one man was observed urging his friend to throw his water bottle into a hippopotamus' mouth. The friend declined.
"We have to work against what we think the concept of a zoo should be," said D.N. Singh, who took over management of the zoo in August.
Singh said the zoo had been forced to erect barriers at eye-level to prevent visitors from pelting the crocodiles with stones on a daily basis.
Overcrowding is another problem, Singh said, with less than 40 keepers looking after 1,250 animals.
Reports of negligence are also common, with Singh saying two six-month-old jaguar cubs died this year after knocking over bottles of disinfectant and lapping up the contents while their keeper was cleaning their enclosure.
"It was an accident," Singh said sadly.
But Singh said the Indian media is sometimes hard on the zoo, with reports claiming authorities had no idea last month where one of its black bears had gone. In fact it had been mated and was pregnant and hiding, he said.
"We do have inherent problems," said Singh, but the zoo was trying to improve, most recently by creating a more natural habitat for its primates.
Such changes are what PETA's Sawhney is hoping to achieve through the lawsuit. But she said the best result would be closing all of India's zoos.
"I haven't been (to the New Delhi zoo) in the last few years but all zoos in India are bad," said Sawhney.
"If animals are not safe in zoos, why do you have them?"
Thai Government Under Fire For Zoo Trading: Change Of Habitat Harms The Welfare Of Elephants and Other Animals
Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1790478,00.html
John Aglionby, South-east Asia correspondent
Monday June 5, 2006
The Guardian
The first eight of 100 Thai elephants earmarked for export to Australian zoos are scheduled to leave tonight, despite fierce opposition from animal rights groups who have fought for more than a year to block the move.
They argue that the change of habitat harms the welfare of elephants and accuse the Thai government of shirking its duty to care for the country's national symbol by not taking responsibility for them.
Australia's government approved the transfer of five of the elephants to Sydney and three to Melbourne last July on the grounds that the animals would be used for breeding - despite claims that the move violates international conventions on animal trade.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Australian Humane Society filed a challenge to the decision, arguing the breeding programme was "quite fantastical", according to the Humane Society's Nicola Beynon.
An Australian judge backed the government in December provided that the zoos met certain conditions guaranteeing the elephants' welfare. Since then a special enclosure has been prepared to receive the animals. Taronga Zoo in Sydney has spent £16m on a home that includes hot and cold bathing areas, an exercise area, waterfalls and ponds and specially designed "sleeping mounds" for the pachyderms.
About 2,000 elephants remain in the wild and 2,600 in captivity in Thailand, according to Soraida Salwala, the founder of the Friends of the Asian Elephant. Forty years ago there were 40,000, she said.
Australia's environment minister, Ian Campbell, has been quoted as saying that in such circumstances "every attempt must be made to ensure the survival of the species, including through captive breeding programmes".
He said that the programmes would help ensure the survival of the species in the face of a shrinking natural habitat, and protect the elephants from conflicts with Thai farmers.
But Ms Soraida believes in a completely different approach to elephant conservation. "Why do we have to breed elephants? We don't have enough places for them. We should be looking after the ones we have already."
She accuses the Thai government of "turning a blind eye to the problem by getting rid of them".
"They say they have other things to do so don't have time to protect the elephants," she said. "But these are our national symbol. If they don't have time to protect the national symbol what hope is there for the country?"
No one from the Thai government was available to discuss the issue of the animals' protection yesterday.
In December the government stirred another controversy when it tried to import 175 animals, including elephants, from Kenya to Chiang Mai Zoo. The move was later blocked by a Kenyan court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1790478,00.html
John Aglionby, South-east Asia correspondent
Monday June 5, 2006
The Guardian
The first eight of 100 Thai elephants earmarked for export to Australian zoos are scheduled to leave tonight, despite fierce opposition from animal rights groups who have fought for more than a year to block the move.
They argue that the change of habitat harms the welfare of elephants and accuse the Thai government of shirking its duty to care for the country's national symbol by not taking responsibility for them.
Australia's government approved the transfer of five of the elephants to Sydney and three to Melbourne last July on the grounds that the animals would be used for breeding - despite claims that the move violates international conventions on animal trade.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Australian Humane Society filed a challenge to the decision, arguing the breeding programme was "quite fantastical", according to the Humane Society's Nicola Beynon.
An Australian judge backed the government in December provided that the zoos met certain conditions guaranteeing the elephants' welfare. Since then a special enclosure has been prepared to receive the animals. Taronga Zoo in Sydney has spent £16m on a home that includes hot and cold bathing areas, an exercise area, waterfalls and ponds and specially designed "sleeping mounds" for the pachyderms.
About 2,000 elephants remain in the wild and 2,600 in captivity in Thailand, according to Soraida Salwala, the founder of the Friends of the Asian Elephant. Forty years ago there were 40,000, she said.
Australia's environment minister, Ian Campbell, has been quoted as saying that in such circumstances "every attempt must be made to ensure the survival of the species, including through captive breeding programmes".
He said that the programmes would help ensure the survival of the species in the face of a shrinking natural habitat, and protect the elephants from conflicts with Thai farmers.
But Ms Soraida believes in a completely different approach to elephant conservation. "Why do we have to breed elephants? We don't have enough places for them. We should be looking after the ones we have already."
She accuses the Thai government of "turning a blind eye to the problem by getting rid of them".
"They say they have other things to do so don't have time to protect the elephants," she said. "But these are our national symbol. If they don't have time to protect the national symbol what hope is there for the country?"
No one from the Thai government was available to discuss the issue of the animals' protection yesterday.
In December the government stirred another controversy when it tried to import 175 animals, including elephants, from Kenya to Chiang Mai Zoo. The move was later blocked by a Kenyan court.
A Call to Action: University Of Wisconsin-Madison Taser Experiments on Live Pigs
Very simple. Follow below:
Please let your voice be heard--so more animals aren't
tragically killed!!
Results of UW Pig Experiment Contradict Taser
Manufacturer's Animal Data
Professor John Webster has concluded his infamous
experiments on live pigs at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison (UW), and his “shocking” discovery
is that Tasering pigs is very different from Tasering
humans.
Based on a report authored by Taser International
consultant Wayne McDaniel—along with Robert
Stratbucker and Max Nerheim, who conducted tests on
pigs and concluded that Tasers were safe—Webster
expected to prove his hypothesis that Tasers cannot
electrocute the heart. But Webster has now posted an
abstract on his Web site with results that he did not
anticipate: “It is possible to cause ventricular
fibrillation in pigs using a Taser [electro-muscular
disruption] device.” The experimenters were also able
to induce ventricular fibrillation in all the animals.
Webster realized that this is because pigs are
naturally protected from electrocution by thick layers
of fat and muscle that are not found in humans. In a
recent e-mail to PETA, Webster explained that Taser’s
animal data initially led him to think that “it was
not possible to electrocute the heart with a Taser.
Working with colleagues who understand the differences
between pigs and humans, we changed our mind.” When
Webster shocked the pigs after removing the animals’
extra tissue in order to approximate the thickness
found in humans, the Taser was a far cry from a
nonlethal weapon.
After PETA pointed out Stratbucker’s employment at
Taser International, he was ejected from his paid
consultancy on the UW Taser experiment. The university
ignored our effort to oust McDaniel, who was also a
consultant for the UW experiment, for the same
conflict of interests. (Of course, PETA also pointed
out the fact that reasonable comparisons cannot be
made between pigs and humans.)
Taser International’s Animal-Based Safety Assertions
Called Into Question
The UW results directly contradict Taser
International’s conclusions, which the company based
on its own history of animal experiments, including a
series of tests on pigs in a home garage and at a
“horse facility” in Phoenix, as well as its
participation in Air Force experiments on conscious
pigs. Despite the rising number of Taser-related
deaths, the company continues to assert that its
product is safe.
What Does This Say About Testing on Animals?
No sooner had Webster posted his findings than Taser
almost simultaneously issued a news release announcing
yet another recent pig experiment with the incredible
headline “Cleveland Clinic Study Shows That Cocaine
Actually Increases the Taser Safety Margin.”Once
again, this new Taser study fails to consider that pig
physiology naturally prevents cardiac electrocution.
And guess who funded the experiment? It was Taser
International.
Animal Tests Discredited
Taser experiments on animals are crude and cruel, and
the experiments’ variables are subject to
manipulation, even when nearly identical experiments
are performed. How many more animals must die before
Taser’s researchers and manufacturers will be
convinced that human data is the only information that
is relevant to humans?
Webster has said that he has “not applied for future
grants.” This is excellent news given the fact that
grant extensions and variations on the theme of
Tasering animals seem to be popular with funding
agencies.
Tell the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) that you
don’t want any more taxpayer-funded Taser “surprises”!
Urge the NIJ to fund studies of human populations and
stop testing weapons on animals:
Glenn Schmitt, Acting Director
National Institute of Justice
810 Seventh St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
glenn.schmitt@usdoj.gov
202-307-2942
202-307-6394 (fax)
Tell Taser CEO Rick Smith that enough is enough and
that experimenting on animals does not prove anything:
Rick Smith, CEO
Taser International
17800 N. 85th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
rick@taser.com
480-978-2000
1-800-978-2737
Please write immediately to Chancellor Wiley and to
the National Institute of Justice.
Spread the word.
John D. Wiley, Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
161 Bascom Hall
500 Lincoln Dr.
Madison, WI 53706
608-262-9946
608-262-8333 (fax)
jdwiley@bascom.wisc.edu
chancellor@news.wisc.edu
Please let your voice be heard--so more animals aren't
tragically killed!!
Results of UW Pig Experiment Contradict Taser
Manufacturer's Animal Data
Professor John Webster has concluded his infamous
experiments on live pigs at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison (UW), and his “shocking” discovery
is that Tasering pigs is very different from Tasering
humans.
Based on a report authored by Taser International
consultant Wayne McDaniel—along with Robert
Stratbucker and Max Nerheim, who conducted tests on
pigs and concluded that Tasers were safe—Webster
expected to prove his hypothesis that Tasers cannot
electrocute the heart. But Webster has now posted an
abstract on his Web site with results that he did not
anticipate: “It is possible to cause ventricular
fibrillation in pigs using a Taser [electro-muscular
disruption] device.” The experimenters were also able
to induce ventricular fibrillation in all the animals.
Webster realized that this is because pigs are
naturally protected from electrocution by thick layers
of fat and muscle that are not found in humans. In a
recent e-mail to PETA, Webster explained that Taser’s
animal data initially led him to think that “it was
not possible to electrocute the heart with a Taser.
Working with colleagues who understand the differences
between pigs and humans, we changed our mind.” When
Webster shocked the pigs after removing the animals’
extra tissue in order to approximate the thickness
found in humans, the Taser was a far cry from a
nonlethal weapon.
After PETA pointed out Stratbucker’s employment at
Taser International, he was ejected from his paid
consultancy on the UW Taser experiment. The university
ignored our effort to oust McDaniel, who was also a
consultant for the UW experiment, for the same
conflict of interests. (Of course, PETA also pointed
out the fact that reasonable comparisons cannot be
made between pigs and humans.)
Taser International’s Animal-Based Safety Assertions
Called Into Question
The UW results directly contradict Taser
International’s conclusions, which the company based
on its own history of animal experiments, including a
series of tests on pigs in a home garage and at a
“horse facility” in Phoenix, as well as its
participation in Air Force experiments on conscious
pigs. Despite the rising number of Taser-related
deaths, the company continues to assert that its
product is safe.
What Does This Say About Testing on Animals?
No sooner had Webster posted his findings than Taser
almost simultaneously issued a news release announcing
yet another recent pig experiment with the incredible
headline “Cleveland Clinic Study Shows That Cocaine
Actually Increases the Taser Safety Margin.”Once
again, this new Taser study fails to consider that pig
physiology naturally prevents cardiac electrocution.
And guess who funded the experiment? It was Taser
International.
Animal Tests Discredited
Taser experiments on animals are crude and cruel, and
the experiments’ variables are subject to
manipulation, even when nearly identical experiments
are performed. How many more animals must die before
Taser’s researchers and manufacturers will be
convinced that human data is the only information that
is relevant to humans?
Webster has said that he has “not applied for future
grants.” This is excellent news given the fact that
grant extensions and variations on the theme of
Tasering animals seem to be popular with funding
agencies.
Tell the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) that you
don’t want any more taxpayer-funded Taser “surprises”!
Urge the NIJ to fund studies of human populations and
stop testing weapons on animals:
Glenn Schmitt, Acting Director
National Institute of Justice
810 Seventh St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
glenn.schmitt@usdoj.gov
202-307-2942
202-307-6394 (fax)
Tell Taser CEO Rick Smith that enough is enough and
that experimenting on animals does not prove anything:
Rick Smith, CEO
Taser International
17800 N. 85th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
rick@taser.com
480-978-2000
1-800-978-2737
Please write immediately to Chancellor Wiley and to
the National Institute of Justice.
Spread the word.
John D. Wiley, Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
161 Bascom Hall
500 Lincoln Dr.
Madison, WI 53706
608-262-9946
608-262-8333 (fax)
jdwiley@bascom.wisc.edu
chancellor@news.wisc.edu
Thursday, June 01, 2006
The Staff of the GEARI Blog Will Re Post in a Few Days: Doing Minor Maintenance
Yes, we will be back by Monday. Have to do minor maintenance. We will catch you all up with the news that occurred during that time. If major news occurs during that time we will post it. Thank you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
