Luckily Virginia moved on this. Sounds like they didn’t have a choice as if you read the story, state police were about to not prosecute at all prior to the FBI actually moving into the property to investigate.
Article:
Vick charged with torturing, killing dogs in Virginia indictment
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/25/vick/
index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
SUSSEX, Virginia (CNN) -- A Virginia grand jury has indicted suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three co-defendants on state charges of running a dogfighting ring at Vick's Virginia home, prosecutors said Tuesday.
Suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick faces sentencing on federal charges in December.
The Surry County grand jury brought two charges against Vick: one count of unlawfully torturing and killing dogs and one of promoting dogfights. Each is a felony charge that could result in a five-year prison term.
Vick, 27, faces a possible prison term of 12 to 18 months after his August guilty plea to a federal conspiracy charge of bankrolling a dogfighting operation from his home outside Newport News, Virginia. He faces sentencing on December 10 in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia.
Vick's lawyers said they will "aggressively" work to make sure "that he is not held accountable for the same conduct twice."
"We are disappointed that these charges were filed in Surry County, since it is the same conduct covered by the federal indictment for which Mr. Vick has already accepted full responsibility and pleaded guilty to in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia," his lead attorney, Billy Martin, said in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon.
Vick pleaded guilty after three associates -- Purnell Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach; Quanis Phillips, 28, of Atlanta, Georgia; and Tony Taylor, 34, of Hampton, Virginia -- admitted their roles in the operation and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. Read about the federal case against Vick »
Tuesday's grand jury session resulted in charges of promoting dogfighting against all three. In addition, Taylor faces three additional counts of unlawful torture and killing of dogs, and Peace, like Vick, faces one count.
All four are scheduled to be arraigned October 3 and face a tentative trial date of November 27. See a timeline of the case against Vick »
Don't Miss
Earlier, Surry County Commonwealth Attorney Gerald Poindexter said he planned to present more than 10 possible charges against Vick and his co-defendants to the grand jury.
The grand jury refused to bring eight additional counts of animal cruelty against the defendants.
"I'm sure that the grand jury took careful consideration, and they made a decision we can live with," he said.
Poindexter said he pursued the case because "crimes that were not prosecuted were committed in Surry County." But he would not say whether his prosecutors put Vick's federal court admission that he killed dogs before the grand jury.
advertisement
"Come on, lady, how much do you need to know?" he told a reporter who was pressing the issue.
The grand jury met at the Sussex County courthouse because the Surry County courthouse is undergoing renovations. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
CNN's Eric Fiegel contributed to this report.
All About Animal Cruelty • Michael Vick
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Site Exposes Horror of Annual Namibia Seal Slaughter
Everyone knows about the Canadian Baby Seal Slaugther, but many don't know about the Namibia Seal Slaughter.
Find out more at:
http://namibia2007.wordpress.com/
Find out more at:
http://namibia2007.wordpress.com/
Another Event Puts Question to Zoos: In Norway, Bears Escape from Zoo and are Killed
Two points here:
One, the unnatural nature of putting bears behind bars.
Two, the idocy of defaulting to killing when any issue arises.
Article:
Animal Rights Association Questions Bear killings
http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=101976
The Animal Rights Association, NOAH, might report the zoo that has shot and killed three bears in three weeks to the police.The 11-year-old female bear and her two cubs escaped from the zoo in Grong last Monday. Today they were found – and killed.
The police officer in Grong, Herolv Nordaunet, said that the only right thing to do was to shoot the bears, and that they followed all safety guidelines and precautions.
Spokesperson Siri Martinsen from NOAH said that they are very upset that the bears could escape so easily. Not long ago, two young wolves also escaped and were shot and killed shortly after.
“These animal ethics are not acceptable,” Martinsen said.
Manager of the zoo, Randi Dille, said that she will look closer into what went on after the animals escaped.
One, the unnatural nature of putting bears behind bars.
Two, the idocy of defaulting to killing when any issue arises.
Article:
Animal Rights Association Questions Bear killings
http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=101976
The Animal Rights Association, NOAH, might report the zoo that has shot and killed three bears in three weeks to the police.The 11-year-old female bear and her two cubs escaped from the zoo in Grong last Monday. Today they were found – and killed.
The police officer in Grong, Herolv Nordaunet, said that the only right thing to do was to shoot the bears, and that they followed all safety guidelines and precautions.
Spokesperson Siri Martinsen from NOAH said that they are very upset that the bears could escape so easily. Not long ago, two young wolves also escaped and were shot and killed shortly after.
“These animal ethics are not acceptable,” Martinsen said.
Manager of the zoo, Randi Dille, said that she will look closer into what went on after the animals escaped.
Officals in Malaysia Call Off Idiotic Dog Catching Contest
Enough said…
Article:
Laudable move
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/9/20/columnists/wheelpower/18923843&sec=Wheel%20Power
Wheel Power: By ANTHONY THANASAYAN
Animal lovers everywhere were relieved when the Selayang Municipal Council called off its dogcatching competition due to pressure from the public.
WHAT a sweet victory it was last Friday for animal-loving Malaysians everywhere. The Selayang Municipal Council (MPS), which had been headstrong for the past couple of weeks about its controversial dog-catching competition, finally relented to the public call for the contest to be aborted.
Members of the public were particularly unhappy that attractive cash prizes were being offered, instead of inculcating positive values about responsible animal ownership and love for animals.
The decision was reached at a meeting held at the MPS headquarters in Bandar Baru Selayang, Selangor. The meeting was attended by representatives of five animal welfare and rights groups. The NGOs were joined by the various representatives of local residents in Selayang, as well as MPS council officials.
The animal rights groups present were the Selangor Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Rights and Welfare Society (Roar), the Malaysian Association for Responsible Pet Ownership (Marpo), and the Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association (Petpositive).
Also present was another ad hoc group called the Coalition of Animal Lovers of Malaysia (Calm). Formed immediately after the MPS dog-catching contest, Calm was there to oppose the competition.
As president of Petpositive, I was the only representative in wheelchair among 40 others invited to the meeting.
The moment I arrived at the venue, I was confronted with a set of obstacles, which I had to overcome, before getting into the meeting room. Although there were at least two parking lots for disabled drivers, there was no one whom I could ask for assistance. Some of the officers who passed by did not even bother to ask if I needed help.
There was no way they would not have known I was a disabled person, unless they were blind themselves. Not only is my car plastered with disabled stickers all over, but I was parked in the MPS disabled lot. Luckily for me, I didn’t have to wait long. I was soon joined by my animal rights activist chums who got my wheelchair out of the car and helped me into it in no time.
The meeting was held on the first floor, and I had to be carried up two flights of steps that were steep and dangerous to attend it.
What I couldn’t understand was why the meeting was not held in the wheelchair-friendly newer building which was only a stone’s throw away. After all, it was plain as day that Petpositive had the words “disabled” and “elderly” in it. Or is it because people today still view the world in terms of stereotypes? And that disabled people are only seen in handicapped homes, hospitals or hospices, instead of in offices, shopping centres and the meeting rooms of local council buildings?
Just when I thought I would be locked out of the meeting room, a couple of my animal rights friends did a wonderful thing. N. Surendran, from Roar, and Natasha Fernz, from Calm, went upstairs to the meeting room and argued my case until, lo and behold, the venue was moved to the wheelchair-accessible building next door so that I could attend!
Later, I heard that one or two of the invited guests were peeved with me for making them switch venues. They even remarked that I was being too demanding and that I was expecting the world to treat me “special” because of my handicap. However, the morning ended on an extraordinary note. I left the premises with the good news that stray dogs in Selayang would be treated with respect from now on.
I have learnt a lesson from my animal activist friends, too. Sometimes in life, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. It’s called: Standing up for yourself.
Article:
Laudable move
http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/9/20/columnists/wheelpower/18923843&sec=Wheel%20Power
Wheel Power: By ANTHONY THANASAYAN
Animal lovers everywhere were relieved when the Selayang Municipal Council called off its dogcatching competition due to pressure from the public.
WHAT a sweet victory it was last Friday for animal-loving Malaysians everywhere. The Selayang Municipal Council (MPS), which had been headstrong for the past couple of weeks about its controversial dog-catching competition, finally relented to the public call for the contest to be aborted.
Members of the public were particularly unhappy that attractive cash prizes were being offered, instead of inculcating positive values about responsible animal ownership and love for animals.
The decision was reached at a meeting held at the MPS headquarters in Bandar Baru Selayang, Selangor. The meeting was attended by representatives of five animal welfare and rights groups. The NGOs were joined by the various representatives of local residents in Selayang, as well as MPS council officials.
The animal rights groups present were the Selangor Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Rights and Welfare Society (Roar), the Malaysian Association for Responsible Pet Ownership (Marpo), and the Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association (Petpositive).
Also present was another ad hoc group called the Coalition of Animal Lovers of Malaysia (Calm). Formed immediately after the MPS dog-catching contest, Calm was there to oppose the competition.
As president of Petpositive, I was the only representative in wheelchair among 40 others invited to the meeting.
The moment I arrived at the venue, I was confronted with a set of obstacles, which I had to overcome, before getting into the meeting room. Although there were at least two parking lots for disabled drivers, there was no one whom I could ask for assistance. Some of the officers who passed by did not even bother to ask if I needed help.
There was no way they would not have known I was a disabled person, unless they were blind themselves. Not only is my car plastered with disabled stickers all over, but I was parked in the MPS disabled lot. Luckily for me, I didn’t have to wait long. I was soon joined by my animal rights activist chums who got my wheelchair out of the car and helped me into it in no time.
The meeting was held on the first floor, and I had to be carried up two flights of steps that were steep and dangerous to attend it.
What I couldn’t understand was why the meeting was not held in the wheelchair-friendly newer building which was only a stone’s throw away. After all, it was plain as day that Petpositive had the words “disabled” and “elderly” in it. Or is it because people today still view the world in terms of stereotypes? And that disabled people are only seen in handicapped homes, hospitals or hospices, instead of in offices, shopping centres and the meeting rooms of local council buildings?
Just when I thought I would be locked out of the meeting room, a couple of my animal rights friends did a wonderful thing. N. Surendran, from Roar, and Natasha Fernz, from Calm, went upstairs to the meeting room and argued my case until, lo and behold, the venue was moved to the wheelchair-accessible building next door so that I could attend!
Later, I heard that one or two of the invited guests were peeved with me for making them switch venues. They even remarked that I was being too demanding and that I was expecting the world to treat me “special” because of my handicap. However, the morning ended on an extraordinary note. I left the premises with the good news that stray dogs in Selayang would be treated with respect from now on.
I have learnt a lesson from my animal activist friends, too. Sometimes in life, you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. It’s called: Standing up for yourself.
Animal Rights and Eco Action / Environmentalism: One Cannot Exist Without the Other
A great writing. I encourage all to read it and pass it on. Really shows the true connection between the two issues.
Article:
Animal Rights - the Beating Heart of Eco Action
http://www.arkangelweb.org/features/20070919beatingheart.php
A Discussion on How We in the Animal Rights Movement are at the Centre of Political Change
There is an expression, though not one an Animal Rights activist would tend to use, that describes something so large as to evade notice as the “Elephant in the room.” However, there is now an issue so large, so vital, that it might be better described as the very room itself. That issue is of course Climate Change. What started as the relatively innocuous sounding Global Warming is well on the way to acquiring its more rightful status as likely Climate Catastrophe. Over the last few years this issue has gone from being the preserve of a few scientists and commentators, largely dismissed as cranks, to the front page of every newspaper and the top of most political agendas.
More importantly, this realisation has led to the flowering of a new Eco Action movement, committed to Direct Action in defence of the Earth, and against all those who put greed and material self gratification before the common interest and a sustainable future for all. This Summer saw the second annual Climate Camp take place at Heathrow airport, to protest at the exponential increase in aviation, one of the fastest growing causes of human induced Climate Change. It is absolutely vital that this grassroots movement continues to grow and to succeed. For whilst they might pay lip service to the idea of change, there is no real sign as yet of politicians having the courage necessary to take the necessary decisions.
Over the last year I have made a point of becoming more involved in this movement. For we know that even if we in Animal Rights achieve our goal of eliminating the abuse and exploitation of all Animal Lives, the onset of Climate Catastrophe will render this utterly pointless. The potential consequences of such dramatic change to the weather systems of the Earth, beggar belief. The very ability of the Planet to continue to sustain life may well be compromised.In the face of this possibility it is incumbent on those of us in the Animal Rights movement to take this on board and adapt our strategies accordingly.
It is my belief that it is not possible to separate that which is truly sustainable from that which is properly ethical. As I like to put it, there can be no Life Rights without Earth Awareness. It is possible to argue, and most politicians would, that Climate Change can be tackled without recourse to fundamental change, both in the way in which we view ourselves, and our relationship to the Earth that is home to us all. However, it is the Earth which is the only properly holistic context in which we can come to informed decisions about the way in which we should live. Politicians would argue that we can continue to found ourselves, and our aspirations, on the politics of permanent economic growth. The lie must be put to the madness of this conceit. Money has never made good motivation, and the evidence of this is now made stark for all to see. We need a new ethic on which to base our idea of what it is we are, and it is we in the Animal Rights movement who can provide that ethic.
Throughout the Summer months, and to a lesser extent the rest of the year, there are an ever increasing number of green gatherings and festivals where people from all backgrounds come together to celebrate and discuss our relationship with the Earth. Some are more overtly political than others, and as Climate Change comes to dominate our thoughts, political activism is bound to seem more relevant than celebration. So what is it that links celebration with political activism, be it Eco Action or Animal Rights? What is it also that is the single most important change an individual can make to their lives in order to reduce their carbon footprint? It is to be Vegan, and it is this which is the indissoluble link between Animal Rights and Eco Action.
For those in the Animal Rights movement it is pretty much unthinkable to be deeply concerned with the equality of all Lives, and yet to kill and eat other animals. Granted, vegetarianism is often a stepping stone on the way to being Vegan, but Vegan is where most people end up as the only rational, reasonable and responsible choice. It is the only ethical way. For those in the Eco Action movement, to be Vegan is coming to be seen as the only sustainable way, given the effect it has on one’s carbon footprint. All food at this year’s Climate Camp was Vegan, as it is at most green or Eco gatherings. So it is that to be ethical is to be sustainable, and to be sustainable is to be ethical. As I presume that all of us who wish to see an ethical and sustainable future believe that it is better to be kind than to be cruel, we are, from our differing starting points, coming to the same conclusions and heading toward the same position. That position must be that it is wrong to exploit any Life, human or otherwise.
Although it would now seem that the many and disparate groups and individuals involved in Eco Action or Animal Rights are, in effect, fighting the same fight, that is not yet the way it appears to those we oppose. To them we either seem, or can be portrayed as, a collection of minor, single issue groups, easily dismissed as anything from cranks to crazed extremists. I know this to be a matter of much frustration and annoyance to the many good and decent people acting in defence of the Earth and all life. I would like to suggest that there is something that we can do about this, which will immeasurably increase our influence, without losing the intensity that a small but committed group can bring to a particular issue.
Why is it that the state so dislikes those groups and individuals who make up the Animal Rights movement, and is now showing the same reaction toward Climate Change campaigners? Why is it that the state brings so many resources to bear against us, and is even prepared to compromise its stated, if not realised, democratic ideals, in order to silence us? Could it just be that in their quieter moments or at least somewhere in their being, that they fear us? Not because we pose a physical threat to them, (after all it is they who are the people of violence, not us, it is they who have the guns and the bombs, and who do not shirk from using them), but because they know that we are right! And in being right we threaten not just their power and wealth, but their very idea of who they are.
Without compromising the integrity of these groups, or of those who prefer to work as individuals, I do feel that we need to operate under a collective, recognisable banner. I say this whilst realising that it is already happening in all except name, and has been for some time. For instance, as someone who has centered themselves in the Animal Rights movement, I chose to work under the banner of Earth First! a name more associated with Eco Action. Earth First! is an idea not an organisation. As such it is available to all of us working toward ethical and sustainable living in whatever field. Evidence of how the movement is operating under this banner can be seen from the self posting website Earth First! Action Reports. This website is ever more widely used by both Eco Action and Animal Rights groups to post details of Actions or for information purposes. I feel it would help to raise the profile and effectiveness of all that we do, to use the Earth First! Name in conjunction with whatever other names we are already using. After all, what better expresses our ethos than to state that what we do, is not done for ourselves, but for the Earth and all Lives. However we choose to operate, as individuals we are all Earth Firsters!
As a visible and tangible demonstration of how Eco Action and Animal Rights are coming together as an Earth First! Movement, the following suggestion has been made. For organisational purposes, the Climate Camp, both in its planning and for the actual event, is made up of a number of neighbourhoods representing different regions. Animal Rights, however, in its various groups and individuals, is a nationwide movement. We feel, therefore that it would show our understanding of the vital importance of Eco Action, and our solidarity with those already involved, to have an Animal Rights neighbourhood at next year’s Climate Camp. Having met a number of people involved in the planning and implementation of this year’s Camp, I am hoping to put forward this suggestion as soon as appropriate, and to help with the necessary planning. In this way, it will become increasingly obvious to those in power who seek only to protect vested financial interest, no matter what the real cost, that they are facing serious opposition. Cogent, coherent and organised opposition working, by way of consensus based non hierarchical systems, toward properly ethical and truly sustainable solutions to the problems we face. We who have decided to care, who have chosen to change, will not sit idly back and watch the Earth and all life being ground into money. As a movement our numbers will grow, and so must the Actions that we take. The future depends on it.
Written by Matt Clowes
To see more of Matt’s writing go to: http://www.earthfirstmanifesto.org/
Article:
Animal Rights - the Beating Heart of Eco Action
http://www.arkangelweb.org/features/20070919beatingheart.php
A Discussion on How We in the Animal Rights Movement are at the Centre of Political Change
There is an expression, though not one an Animal Rights activist would tend to use, that describes something so large as to evade notice as the “Elephant in the room.” However, there is now an issue so large, so vital, that it might be better described as the very room itself. That issue is of course Climate Change. What started as the relatively innocuous sounding Global Warming is well on the way to acquiring its more rightful status as likely Climate Catastrophe. Over the last few years this issue has gone from being the preserve of a few scientists and commentators, largely dismissed as cranks, to the front page of every newspaper and the top of most political agendas.
More importantly, this realisation has led to the flowering of a new Eco Action movement, committed to Direct Action in defence of the Earth, and against all those who put greed and material self gratification before the common interest and a sustainable future for all. This Summer saw the second annual Climate Camp take place at Heathrow airport, to protest at the exponential increase in aviation, one of the fastest growing causes of human induced Climate Change. It is absolutely vital that this grassroots movement continues to grow and to succeed. For whilst they might pay lip service to the idea of change, there is no real sign as yet of politicians having the courage necessary to take the necessary decisions.
Over the last year I have made a point of becoming more involved in this movement. For we know that even if we in Animal Rights achieve our goal of eliminating the abuse and exploitation of all Animal Lives, the onset of Climate Catastrophe will render this utterly pointless. The potential consequences of such dramatic change to the weather systems of the Earth, beggar belief. The very ability of the Planet to continue to sustain life may well be compromised.In the face of this possibility it is incumbent on those of us in the Animal Rights movement to take this on board and adapt our strategies accordingly.
It is my belief that it is not possible to separate that which is truly sustainable from that which is properly ethical. As I like to put it, there can be no Life Rights without Earth Awareness. It is possible to argue, and most politicians would, that Climate Change can be tackled without recourse to fundamental change, both in the way in which we view ourselves, and our relationship to the Earth that is home to us all. However, it is the Earth which is the only properly holistic context in which we can come to informed decisions about the way in which we should live. Politicians would argue that we can continue to found ourselves, and our aspirations, on the politics of permanent economic growth. The lie must be put to the madness of this conceit. Money has never made good motivation, and the evidence of this is now made stark for all to see. We need a new ethic on which to base our idea of what it is we are, and it is we in the Animal Rights movement who can provide that ethic.
Throughout the Summer months, and to a lesser extent the rest of the year, there are an ever increasing number of green gatherings and festivals where people from all backgrounds come together to celebrate and discuss our relationship with the Earth. Some are more overtly political than others, and as Climate Change comes to dominate our thoughts, political activism is bound to seem more relevant than celebration. So what is it that links celebration with political activism, be it Eco Action or Animal Rights? What is it also that is the single most important change an individual can make to their lives in order to reduce their carbon footprint? It is to be Vegan, and it is this which is the indissoluble link between Animal Rights and Eco Action.
For those in the Animal Rights movement it is pretty much unthinkable to be deeply concerned with the equality of all Lives, and yet to kill and eat other animals. Granted, vegetarianism is often a stepping stone on the way to being Vegan, but Vegan is where most people end up as the only rational, reasonable and responsible choice. It is the only ethical way. For those in the Eco Action movement, to be Vegan is coming to be seen as the only sustainable way, given the effect it has on one’s carbon footprint. All food at this year’s Climate Camp was Vegan, as it is at most green or Eco gatherings. So it is that to be ethical is to be sustainable, and to be sustainable is to be ethical. As I presume that all of us who wish to see an ethical and sustainable future believe that it is better to be kind than to be cruel, we are, from our differing starting points, coming to the same conclusions and heading toward the same position. That position must be that it is wrong to exploit any Life, human or otherwise.
Although it would now seem that the many and disparate groups and individuals involved in Eco Action or Animal Rights are, in effect, fighting the same fight, that is not yet the way it appears to those we oppose. To them we either seem, or can be portrayed as, a collection of minor, single issue groups, easily dismissed as anything from cranks to crazed extremists. I know this to be a matter of much frustration and annoyance to the many good and decent people acting in defence of the Earth and all life. I would like to suggest that there is something that we can do about this, which will immeasurably increase our influence, without losing the intensity that a small but committed group can bring to a particular issue.
Why is it that the state so dislikes those groups and individuals who make up the Animal Rights movement, and is now showing the same reaction toward Climate Change campaigners? Why is it that the state brings so many resources to bear against us, and is even prepared to compromise its stated, if not realised, democratic ideals, in order to silence us? Could it just be that in their quieter moments or at least somewhere in their being, that they fear us? Not because we pose a physical threat to them, (after all it is they who are the people of violence, not us, it is they who have the guns and the bombs, and who do not shirk from using them), but because they know that we are right! And in being right we threaten not just their power and wealth, but their very idea of who they are.
Without compromising the integrity of these groups, or of those who prefer to work as individuals, I do feel that we need to operate under a collective, recognisable banner. I say this whilst realising that it is already happening in all except name, and has been for some time. For instance, as someone who has centered themselves in the Animal Rights movement, I chose to work under the banner of Earth First! a name more associated with Eco Action. Earth First! is an idea not an organisation. As such it is available to all of us working toward ethical and sustainable living in whatever field. Evidence of how the movement is operating under this banner can be seen from the self posting website Earth First! Action Reports. This website is ever more widely used by both Eco Action and Animal Rights groups to post details of Actions or for information purposes. I feel it would help to raise the profile and effectiveness of all that we do, to use the Earth First! Name in conjunction with whatever other names we are already using. After all, what better expresses our ethos than to state that what we do, is not done for ourselves, but for the Earth and all Lives. However we choose to operate, as individuals we are all Earth Firsters!
As a visible and tangible demonstration of how Eco Action and Animal Rights are coming together as an Earth First! Movement, the following suggestion has been made. For organisational purposes, the Climate Camp, both in its planning and for the actual event, is made up of a number of neighbourhoods representing different regions. Animal Rights, however, in its various groups and individuals, is a nationwide movement. We feel, therefore that it would show our understanding of the vital importance of Eco Action, and our solidarity with those already involved, to have an Animal Rights neighbourhood at next year’s Climate Camp. Having met a number of people involved in the planning and implementation of this year’s Camp, I am hoping to put forward this suggestion as soon as appropriate, and to help with the necessary planning. In this way, it will become increasingly obvious to those in power who seek only to protect vested financial interest, no matter what the real cost, that they are facing serious opposition. Cogent, coherent and organised opposition working, by way of consensus based non hierarchical systems, toward properly ethical and truly sustainable solutions to the problems we face. We who have decided to care, who have chosen to change, will not sit idly back and watch the Earth and all life being ground into money. As a movement our numbers will grow, and so must the Actions that we take. The future depends on it.
Written by Matt Clowes
To see more of Matt’s writing go to: http://www.earthfirstmanifesto.org/
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Case Made Once Again for the Positive Environmental Effects of Vegetarianism
It’s been made clear once again: undeniably, vegetarianism is the number one act for attempting to address the environmental problems of today.
Article:
Nuggets and Hummers and fish sticks, oh my!
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/17/16200/7809
PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet
Posted by Grist at 11:35 AM on 18 Sep 2007
This is a guest essay from Bruce Friedrich, vice president for campaigns at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). It was written in response to Alex Roth's essay "PETA's dogma is all bark and no bite." Friedrich has been an environmental activist for more than 20 years.
In 1987, I read Diet for a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappé and -- primarily for human rights and environmental reasons -- went vegan. Two decades later, I still believe that -- even leaving aside all the animal welfare issues -- a vegan diet is the only reasonable diet for people in the developed world who care about the environment or global poverty.
Over the past 20 years, the environmental argument against growing crops to be fed to animals -- so that humans can eat the animals -- has grown substantially. Just this past November, the environmental problems associated with eating chickens, pigs, and other animals were the subject of a 408-page United Nations scientific report titled Livestock's Long Shadow.
The U.N. report found that the meat industry contributes to "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity." The report concludes that the meat industry is "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."
Eating Meat Is the No. 1 Consumer Cause of Global Warming
Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and others have brought the possibility of global cataclysm into sharp relief. What they have not been talking about, however, is the fact that all cars, trucks, planes, and other types of transportation combined account for about 13 percent of global warming emissions, whereas raising chickens, pigs, cattle, and other animals contributes to 18 percent, according to U.N. scientists. Yes, eating animal products contributes to global warming 40 percent more than all SUVs, 18-wheelers, jumbo jets, and other types of travel combined.
Al and Leo might not be talking about the connection between meat and global warming, but the Live Earth concert that Al inspired is: The recently published Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook recommends, "Don't be a chicken. Stop being a pig. And don't have a cow. Be the first on your block to cut back on meat." The Handbook further explains that "refusing meat" is "the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint" [emphasis in original].
And Environmental Defense, on its website, notes, "If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains ... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads." Imagine if we stopped eating animal products altogether.
Eating Meat Wastes Resources
If I lie in bed and never get up, I will burn almost 2,500 calories each day; that is what's required to keep my body alive. The same physiological reality applies to all animals: The vast majority of the calories consumed by a chicken, a pig, a cow, or another animal goes into keeping that animal alive, and once you add to that the calories required to create the parts of the animal that we don't eat (e.g., bones, feathers, and blood), you find that it takes more than 10 times as many calories of feed given to an animal to get one calorie back in the form of edible fat or muscle. In other words, it's exponentially more efficient to eat grains, soy, or oats directly rather than feed them to farmed animals so that humans can eat those animals. It's like tossing more than 10 plates of spaghetti into the trash for every one plate you eat.
And that's just the pure "calories in, calories out" equation. When you factor in everything else, the situation gets much worse. Think about the extra stages of production that are required to get dead chickens, pigs, or other animals from the farm to the table:
1. Grow more than 10 times as much corn, grain, and soy (with all the required tilling, irrigation, crop dusters, and so on), as would be required if we ate the plants directly.
2. Transport -- in gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing 18-wheelers -- all that grain and soy to feed manufacturers.
3. Operate the feed mill (again, using massive amounts of resources).
4. Truck the feed to the factory farms.
5. Operate the factory farms.
6. Truck the animals many miles to slaughterhouses.
7. Operate the slaughterhouses.
8. Truck the meat to processing plants.
9. Operate the meat processing plants.
10. Truck the meat to grocery stores (in refrigerated trucks).
11. Keep the meat in refrigerators or freezers at the stores.
With every stage comes massive amounts of extra energy usage -- and with that comes heavy pollution and massive amounts of greenhouse gases, of course. Obviously, vegan foods require some of these stages, too, but vegan foods cut out the factory farms, the slaughterhouses, and multiple stages of heavily polluting tractor-trailer trucks, as well as all the resources (and pollution) involved in each of those stages. And as was already noted, vegan foods require less than one-tenth as many calories from crops, since they are turned directly into food rather than funneled through animals first.
Eating Meat Wastes and Pollutes Water
All food requires water, but animal foods are exponentially more wasteful of water than vegan foods are. Enormous quantities of water are used to irrigate the corn, soy, and oat fields that are dedicated to feeding farmed animals -- and massive amounts of water are used in factory farms and slaughterhouses. According to the National Audubon Society, raising animals for food requires about as much water as all other water uses combined. Environmental author John Robbins estimates that it takes about 300 gallons of water to feed a vegan for a day, four times as much water to feed an ovo-lacto vegetarian, and about 14 times as much water to feed a meat-eater.
Raising animals for food is also a water-polluting process. According to a report prepared by U.S. Senate researchers, animals raised for food in the U.S. produce 86,000 pounds of excrement per second -- that's 130 times more than the amount of excrement that the entire human population of the U.S. produces! Farmed animals' excrement is more concentrated than human excrement, and is often contaminated with herbicides, pesticides, toxic chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, and other harmful substances. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the runoff from factory farms pollutes our rivers and lakes more than all other industrial sources combined.
Eating Meat Destroys the Rain Forest
The World Bank recently reported that 90 percent of all Amazon rainforest land cleared since 1970 is used for meat production. It's not just that we're destroying the rainforest to make grazing land for cows -- we're also destroying it to grow feed for them and other animals. Last year, Greenpeace targeted KFC for the destruction of rainforests because the Amazon is being razed to grow feed for chickens that end up in KFC's buckets. Of course, the rainforest is being used to grow feed for other chickens, pigs, and cows, too (i.e., KFC isn't the only culprit).
What About Eating Fish?
Anyone who reads the news knows that commercial fishing fleets are plundering the oceans and destroying sensitive aquatic ecosystems at an incomprehensible rate. One super-trawler is the length of a football field, and can take in 800,000 pounds of fish in a single netting. These trawlers scrape along the ocean floor, clear-cutting coral reefs and everything else in their path. Hydraulic dredges scoop up huge chunks of the ocean floor to sift out scallops, clams, and oysters. Most of what the fishing fleets pull in isn't even eaten by human beings; half is fed to animals raised for food, and about 30 million tons each year are just tossed back into the ocean, dead, with disastrous and irreversible consequences for the natural biological balance.
Then there is aquaculture (fish farming), which is increasing at a rate of more than 10 percent annually. Aquaculture is even worse than commercial fishing because, for starters, it takes about four pounds of wild-caught fish to reap just one pound of farmed fish, which eat fish caught by commercial trawlers. Farmed fish are often raised in the same water that wild fish swim in, but fish farmers dump antibiotics into the water and use genetic breeding to create "Frankenstein fish." The antibiotics contaminate the oceans and seas, and the genetically engineered fish sometimes escape and breed with wild fish, throwing delicate aquatic balances off-kilter. Researchers at the University of Stockholm demonstrated that the horrible environmental impact of fish farms can extend to an area 50,000 times larger than the farm itself.
Eating Meat Supports Cruelty
Caring for the environment means protecting all of our planet's inhabitants, not just the human ones. Chickens, pigs, turkeys, fish, and cows are intelligent, social animals who feel pain, just as humans, dogs, and cats do. Chickens and pigs do better on animal behavior cognition tests than dogs or cats, and are interesting individuals in the same way. Fish form strong social bonds, and some even use tools. Yet these animals suffer extreme pain and deprivation in today's factory farms. Chickens have their sensitive beaks cut off with a hot blade, pigs have their tails chopped off and their teeth removed with pliers, and cattle and pigs are castrated -- all without any pain relief. The animals are crowded together and given steady doses of hormones and antibiotics in order to make them grow so quickly that their hearts and limbs often cannot keep up, causing crippling and heart attacks. At the slaughterhouse, they are hung upside-down and bled to death, often while they are still conscious.
What About Eating Meat That Isn't From Factory-Farmed Animals?
Is meat better if it doesn't come from factory-farmed animals? Of course, but its production still wastes resources and pollutes the environment. Shouldn't we environmentalists challenge ourselves to do the best we can, not just to make choices that are a bit less bad?
The U.N. report looks at meat at a global level and indicts the inefficiency and waste that are inherent in meat production. No matter where meat comes from, raising animals for food will require that exponentially more calories be fed to animals than they can produce in their flesh, and it will require all those extra stages of CO2-intensive production as well. Only grass-fed cows eat food from land that could not otherwise be used to grow food for human beings, and even grass-fed cows require much more water and create much more pollution than vegan foods do.
Conclusion
The case against eating animal products is ironclad; it's not a new argument, and it goes way beyond just global warming. Animals will not grow or produce flesh, milk, or eggs without food and water; they won't do it without producing excrement; and the stages of meat, dairy, and egg production will always cause pollution and be resource-intensive.
If the past is any guide, this essay will generate much hand-wringing from my meat-eating environmentalist colleagues and, sadly, some anger. They will prefer half-measures (e.g., meat that is "not as bad" as other meat). They may accuse PETA of being judgmental -- simply for presenting the evidence. They will make various arguments that are beside the point. They will ignore the overwhelming argument against eating animal products and try to find a loophole. Some will just call the argument absurd, presenting no evidence at all.
But as Leonardo DiCaprio has noted, this is the 11th hour for the environment. Where something as basic as eating animals is concerned, the choice could not be any clearer: Every time we sit down to eat, we can choose to eat a product that is, according to U.N. scientists, "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," or we can choose vegan -- and preferably organic -- foods. It's bad for the environment to eat animals. It's time to stop looking for loopholes.
Considering the proven health benefits of a vegetarian diet -- the American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have a reduced risk of obesity, heart disease, and various types of cancer --- there's no need or excuse to eat chickens, pigs, eggs, and other animal products. And vegan foods are available everywhere and taste great; as with all foods -- vegan or not -- you just need to find the ones you like.
You can find out more at GoVeg.com and get great-tasting recipes, meal plans, cookbook recommendations, and more at VegCooking.com.
For story: Nuggets and Hummers and fish sticks, oh my!
15 Comments | Post a Comment
Don't Taser Me, Bro'
Eating meat is not the problem.
Eating a lot of putrified animal particle board that parades as meat is the problem.
Hunting a wild boar once every two weeks in Tuscany is living.
Wolfing down Presto! burgers is suicide.
Let's separate the wheat from the chafe -- and please, PETA, don't taser me!
John Bailo
Sutext:
by jabailo at 12:14 PM on 18 Sep 2007
John
What does that have to do with the issue? How much wild boar have you hunted this year?
by Matt G at 12:20 PM on 18 Sep 2007
I wonder what prompted this article?
Read "damage control."
The ad says, "Meat is the #1 Cause of Global Warming," which some fool pointed out is not true ("Uh, he doesn't have any clothes on.."), so here they try to do damage control by rewording it to say "Eating Meat Is the No. 1 Consumer Cause of Global Warming" which unfortunately is even less true. Power generation, industrial processes, and just about every other source of CO2 is paid for by consumers.
The divisive stance they have taken is a dead end strategy. They refuse to simply acknowledge that eating less meat, and less environmentally destructive forms of it is an adequate goal. That is because their real agenda is animal rights. They have jumped on the global warming environment bandwagon to promote their cause. They insist that you become one of them. They have a clearly defined group of people, Vegans and Vegetarians. There does not appear to be any other group allowed. That is why I created the 50-percent Vegan group of which I am a proud member. I also formally challenge Bruce to a carbon footprint pissing contest!
I'll work on a formal rebuttal if I have time. Gawd.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Article:
Nuggets and Hummers and fish sticks, oh my!
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/17/16200/7809
PETA VP argues vegetarianism is the best way to help the planet
Posted by Grist at 11:35 AM on 18 Sep 2007
This is a guest essay from Bruce Friedrich, vice president for campaigns at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). It was written in response to Alex Roth's essay "PETA's dogma is all bark and no bite." Friedrich has been an environmental activist for more than 20 years.
In 1987, I read Diet for a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappé and -- primarily for human rights and environmental reasons -- went vegan. Two decades later, I still believe that -- even leaving aside all the animal welfare issues -- a vegan diet is the only reasonable diet for people in the developed world who care about the environment or global poverty.
Over the past 20 years, the environmental argument against growing crops to be fed to animals -- so that humans can eat the animals -- has grown substantially. Just this past November, the environmental problems associated with eating chickens, pigs, and other animals were the subject of a 408-page United Nations scientific report titled Livestock's Long Shadow.
The U.N. report found that the meat industry contributes to "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity." The report concludes that the meat industry is "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."
Eating Meat Is the No. 1 Consumer Cause of Global Warming
Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and others have brought the possibility of global cataclysm into sharp relief. What they have not been talking about, however, is the fact that all cars, trucks, planes, and other types of transportation combined account for about 13 percent of global warming emissions, whereas raising chickens, pigs, cattle, and other animals contributes to 18 percent, according to U.N. scientists. Yes, eating animal products contributes to global warming 40 percent more than all SUVs, 18-wheelers, jumbo jets, and other types of travel combined.
Al and Leo might not be talking about the connection between meat and global warming, but the Live Earth concert that Al inspired is: The recently published Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook recommends, "Don't be a chicken. Stop being a pig. And don't have a cow. Be the first on your block to cut back on meat." The Handbook further explains that "refusing meat" is "the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint" [emphasis in original].
And Environmental Defense, on its website, notes, "If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains ... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads." Imagine if we stopped eating animal products altogether.
Eating Meat Wastes Resources
If I lie in bed and never get up, I will burn almost 2,500 calories each day; that is what's required to keep my body alive. The same physiological reality applies to all animals: The vast majority of the calories consumed by a chicken, a pig, a cow, or another animal goes into keeping that animal alive, and once you add to that the calories required to create the parts of the animal that we don't eat (e.g., bones, feathers, and blood), you find that it takes more than 10 times as many calories of feed given to an animal to get one calorie back in the form of edible fat or muscle. In other words, it's exponentially more efficient to eat grains, soy, or oats directly rather than feed them to farmed animals so that humans can eat those animals. It's like tossing more than 10 plates of spaghetti into the trash for every one plate you eat.
And that's just the pure "calories in, calories out" equation. When you factor in everything else, the situation gets much worse. Think about the extra stages of production that are required to get dead chickens, pigs, or other animals from the farm to the table:
1. Grow more than 10 times as much corn, grain, and soy (with all the required tilling, irrigation, crop dusters, and so on), as would be required if we ate the plants directly.
2. Transport -- in gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing 18-wheelers -- all that grain and soy to feed manufacturers.
3. Operate the feed mill (again, using massive amounts of resources).
4. Truck the feed to the factory farms.
5. Operate the factory farms.
6. Truck the animals many miles to slaughterhouses.
7. Operate the slaughterhouses.
8. Truck the meat to processing plants.
9. Operate the meat processing plants.
10. Truck the meat to grocery stores (in refrigerated trucks).
11. Keep the meat in refrigerators or freezers at the stores.
With every stage comes massive amounts of extra energy usage -- and with that comes heavy pollution and massive amounts of greenhouse gases, of course. Obviously, vegan foods require some of these stages, too, but vegan foods cut out the factory farms, the slaughterhouses, and multiple stages of heavily polluting tractor-trailer trucks, as well as all the resources (and pollution) involved in each of those stages. And as was already noted, vegan foods require less than one-tenth as many calories from crops, since they are turned directly into food rather than funneled through animals first.
Eating Meat Wastes and Pollutes Water
All food requires water, but animal foods are exponentially more wasteful of water than vegan foods are. Enormous quantities of water are used to irrigate the corn, soy, and oat fields that are dedicated to feeding farmed animals -- and massive amounts of water are used in factory farms and slaughterhouses. According to the National Audubon Society, raising animals for food requires about as much water as all other water uses combined. Environmental author John Robbins estimates that it takes about 300 gallons of water to feed a vegan for a day, four times as much water to feed an ovo-lacto vegetarian, and about 14 times as much water to feed a meat-eater.
Raising animals for food is also a water-polluting process. According to a report prepared by U.S. Senate researchers, animals raised for food in the U.S. produce 86,000 pounds of excrement per second -- that's 130 times more than the amount of excrement that the entire human population of the U.S. produces! Farmed animals' excrement is more concentrated than human excrement, and is often contaminated with herbicides, pesticides, toxic chemicals, hormones, antibiotics, and other harmful substances. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the runoff from factory farms pollutes our rivers and lakes more than all other industrial sources combined.
Eating Meat Destroys the Rain Forest
The World Bank recently reported that 90 percent of all Amazon rainforest land cleared since 1970 is used for meat production. It's not just that we're destroying the rainforest to make grazing land for cows -- we're also destroying it to grow feed for them and other animals. Last year, Greenpeace targeted KFC for the destruction of rainforests because the Amazon is being razed to grow feed for chickens that end up in KFC's buckets. Of course, the rainforest is being used to grow feed for other chickens, pigs, and cows, too (i.e., KFC isn't the only culprit).
What About Eating Fish?
Anyone who reads the news knows that commercial fishing fleets are plundering the oceans and destroying sensitive aquatic ecosystems at an incomprehensible rate. One super-trawler is the length of a football field, and can take in 800,000 pounds of fish in a single netting. These trawlers scrape along the ocean floor, clear-cutting coral reefs and everything else in their path. Hydraulic dredges scoop up huge chunks of the ocean floor to sift out scallops, clams, and oysters. Most of what the fishing fleets pull in isn't even eaten by human beings; half is fed to animals raised for food, and about 30 million tons each year are just tossed back into the ocean, dead, with disastrous and irreversible consequences for the natural biological balance.
Then there is aquaculture (fish farming), which is increasing at a rate of more than 10 percent annually. Aquaculture is even worse than commercial fishing because, for starters, it takes about four pounds of wild-caught fish to reap just one pound of farmed fish, which eat fish caught by commercial trawlers. Farmed fish are often raised in the same water that wild fish swim in, but fish farmers dump antibiotics into the water and use genetic breeding to create "Frankenstein fish." The antibiotics contaminate the oceans and seas, and the genetically engineered fish sometimes escape and breed with wild fish, throwing delicate aquatic balances off-kilter. Researchers at the University of Stockholm demonstrated that the horrible environmental impact of fish farms can extend to an area 50,000 times larger than the farm itself.
Eating Meat Supports Cruelty
Caring for the environment means protecting all of our planet's inhabitants, not just the human ones. Chickens, pigs, turkeys, fish, and cows are intelligent, social animals who feel pain, just as humans, dogs, and cats do. Chickens and pigs do better on animal behavior cognition tests than dogs or cats, and are interesting individuals in the same way. Fish form strong social bonds, and some even use tools. Yet these animals suffer extreme pain and deprivation in today's factory farms. Chickens have their sensitive beaks cut off with a hot blade, pigs have their tails chopped off and their teeth removed with pliers, and cattle and pigs are castrated -- all without any pain relief. The animals are crowded together and given steady doses of hormones and antibiotics in order to make them grow so quickly that their hearts and limbs often cannot keep up, causing crippling and heart attacks. At the slaughterhouse, they are hung upside-down and bled to death, often while they are still conscious.
What About Eating Meat That Isn't From Factory-Farmed Animals?
Is meat better if it doesn't come from factory-farmed animals? Of course, but its production still wastes resources and pollutes the environment. Shouldn't we environmentalists challenge ourselves to do the best we can, not just to make choices that are a bit less bad?
The U.N. report looks at meat at a global level and indicts the inefficiency and waste that are inherent in meat production. No matter where meat comes from, raising animals for food will require that exponentially more calories be fed to animals than they can produce in their flesh, and it will require all those extra stages of CO2-intensive production as well. Only grass-fed cows eat food from land that could not otherwise be used to grow food for human beings, and even grass-fed cows require much more water and create much more pollution than vegan foods do.
Conclusion
The case against eating animal products is ironclad; it's not a new argument, and it goes way beyond just global warming. Animals will not grow or produce flesh, milk, or eggs without food and water; they won't do it without producing excrement; and the stages of meat, dairy, and egg production will always cause pollution and be resource-intensive.
If the past is any guide, this essay will generate much hand-wringing from my meat-eating environmentalist colleagues and, sadly, some anger. They will prefer half-measures (e.g., meat that is "not as bad" as other meat). They may accuse PETA of being judgmental -- simply for presenting the evidence. They will make various arguments that are beside the point. They will ignore the overwhelming argument against eating animal products and try to find a loophole. Some will just call the argument absurd, presenting no evidence at all.
But as Leonardo DiCaprio has noted, this is the 11th hour for the environment. Where something as basic as eating animals is concerned, the choice could not be any clearer: Every time we sit down to eat, we can choose to eat a product that is, according to U.N. scientists, "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," or we can choose vegan -- and preferably organic -- foods. It's bad for the environment to eat animals. It's time to stop looking for loopholes.
Considering the proven health benefits of a vegetarian diet -- the American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have a reduced risk of obesity, heart disease, and various types of cancer --- there's no need or excuse to eat chickens, pigs, eggs, and other animal products. And vegan foods are available everywhere and taste great; as with all foods -- vegan or not -- you just need to find the ones you like.
You can find out more at GoVeg.com and get great-tasting recipes, meal plans, cookbook recommendations, and more at VegCooking.com.
For story: Nuggets and Hummers and fish sticks, oh my!
15 Comments | Post a Comment
Don't Taser Me, Bro'
Eating meat is not the problem.
Eating a lot of putrified animal particle board that parades as meat is the problem.
Hunting a wild boar once every two weeks in Tuscany is living.
Wolfing down Presto! burgers is suicide.
Let's separate the wheat from the chafe -- and please, PETA, don't taser me!
John Bailo
Sutext:
by jabailo at 12:14 PM on 18 Sep 2007
John
What does that have to do with the issue? How much wild boar have you hunted this year?
by Matt G at 12:20 PM on 18 Sep 2007
I wonder what prompted this article?
Read "damage control."
The ad says, "Meat is the #1 Cause of Global Warming," which some fool pointed out is not true ("Uh, he doesn't have any clothes on.."), so here they try to do damage control by rewording it to say "Eating Meat Is the No. 1 Consumer Cause of Global Warming" which unfortunately is even less true. Power generation, industrial processes, and just about every other source of CO2 is paid for by consumers.
The divisive stance they have taken is a dead end strategy. They refuse to simply acknowledge that eating less meat, and less environmentally destructive forms of it is an adequate goal. That is because their real agenda is animal rights. They have jumped on the global warming environment bandwagon to promote their cause. They insist that you become one of them. They have a clearly defined group of people, Vegans and Vegetarians. There does not appear to be any other group allowed. That is why I created the 50-percent Vegan group of which I am a proud member. I also formally challenge Bruce to a carbon footprint pissing contest!
I'll work on a formal rebuttal if I have time. Gawd.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Gorillas Head One Step Closer to Extinction
The tragedy of the loss of Gorillas would be incalculable.
Article:
Gorillas now 'critically endangered'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/
ap_on_re_eu/endangered_gorillas
By ERICA BULMAN, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 12, 4:10 PM ET
GENEVA - The most common type of gorilla is now "critically endangered," one step away from global extinction, according to the 2007 Red List of Threatened Species released Wednesday by the World Conservation Union.
The Ebola virus is depleting Western Gorilla populations to a point where it might become impossible for them to recover.
Commercial hunting, civil unrest and habitat loss due to logging and forest clearance for palm oil plantations are compounding the problem, said the Swiss-based group known by its acronym IUCN.
"Great apes are our closest living relatives and very special creatures," Russ Mittermeier, head of IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told The Associated Press. "We could fit all the remaining great apes in the world into two or three large football stadiums. There just aren't very many left."
In all, 16,306 species are threatened with extinction, 188 more than last year, IUCN said. One in four mammals are in jeopardy, as are one in eight birds, a third of all amphibians and 70 percent of the plants that have been studied.
"Life on Earth is disappearing fast and will continue to do so unless urgent action is taken," the IUCN warned.
The Western Gorilla's main subspecies — the Western Lowland Gorilla — has been decimated by the Ebola virus, which has wiped out about a third of the gorillas found in protected areas over the last 15 years.
"In the last 10 years, Ebola is the single largest killer of apes. Poaching is a close second," said Peter Walsh, a member if IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told the AP. "Ebola is knocking down populations to a level where they won't bounce back. The rate of decline is dizzying. If it continues, we'll lose them in 10-12 years."
Female gorillas only start reproducing at the age of 9 or 10 and only have one baby about every five years. Walsh said even in ideal conditions, it would take the gorillas decades to bounce back.
The World Conservation Union also said the Yangtze River dolphin is now "possibly extinct." There have been no documented sightings of the long-snouted cetacean since 2002. An intensive search of its habitat in November and December proved fruitless but more searches are needed as one was possibly spotted in late August.
The Redheaded Vulture soared from "near threatened" to "critically endangered." The birds' rapid decline over the last eight years is largely due to diclofenac, a painkiller given to ill or injured farm cattle so they can still work. But the substance poisons the vultures when they scavenge livestock carcasses.
Only 182 breeding adults of the Gharial crocodile remain, down almost 60 percent from a decade ago. India and Nepal's crocodile has become critically endangered because dams, irrigation projects and artificial embankments have reduced its habitat to just 2 percent of its former range.
The woolly-stalked begonia is the only species declared extinct this year. Extensive searches have failed to uncover any specimens of the Malaysian herb in the last century, IUCN said.
Only one species moved to a lesser category of threat. One of the world's rarest parrots 15 years ago, the Mauritius Echo parakeet, eased back from critically endangered to only endangered. That was a result of close monitoring of its nesting sites, and supplementary feeding combined with a captive breeding and release program.
IUCN says 785 species have disappeared over the last 500 years. A further 65 are found only in artificial settings such as zoos.
The Red List, produced by a worldwide network of thousands of experts, includes some 41,000 species and subspecies around the globe.
Article:
Gorillas now 'critically endangered'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/
ap_on_re_eu/endangered_gorillas
By ERICA BULMAN, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 12, 4:10 PM ET
GENEVA - The most common type of gorilla is now "critically endangered," one step away from global extinction, according to the 2007 Red List of Threatened Species released Wednesday by the World Conservation Union.
The Ebola virus is depleting Western Gorilla populations to a point where it might become impossible for them to recover.
Commercial hunting, civil unrest and habitat loss due to logging and forest clearance for palm oil plantations are compounding the problem, said the Swiss-based group known by its acronym IUCN.
"Great apes are our closest living relatives and very special creatures," Russ Mittermeier, head of IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told The Associated Press. "We could fit all the remaining great apes in the world into two or three large football stadiums. There just aren't very many left."
In all, 16,306 species are threatened with extinction, 188 more than last year, IUCN said. One in four mammals are in jeopardy, as are one in eight birds, a third of all amphibians and 70 percent of the plants that have been studied.
"Life on Earth is disappearing fast and will continue to do so unless urgent action is taken," the IUCN warned.
The Western Gorilla's main subspecies — the Western Lowland Gorilla — has been decimated by the Ebola virus, which has wiped out about a third of the gorillas found in protected areas over the last 15 years.
"In the last 10 years, Ebola is the single largest killer of apes. Poaching is a close second," said Peter Walsh, a member if IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told the AP. "Ebola is knocking down populations to a level where they won't bounce back. The rate of decline is dizzying. If it continues, we'll lose them in 10-12 years."
Female gorillas only start reproducing at the age of 9 or 10 and only have one baby about every five years. Walsh said even in ideal conditions, it would take the gorillas decades to bounce back.
The World Conservation Union also said the Yangtze River dolphin is now "possibly extinct." There have been no documented sightings of the long-snouted cetacean since 2002. An intensive search of its habitat in November and December proved fruitless but more searches are needed as one was possibly spotted in late August.
The Redheaded Vulture soared from "near threatened" to "critically endangered." The birds' rapid decline over the last eight years is largely due to diclofenac, a painkiller given to ill or injured farm cattle so they can still work. But the substance poisons the vultures when they scavenge livestock carcasses.
Only 182 breeding adults of the Gharial crocodile remain, down almost 60 percent from a decade ago. India and Nepal's crocodile has become critically endangered because dams, irrigation projects and artificial embankments have reduced its habitat to just 2 percent of its former range.
The woolly-stalked begonia is the only species declared extinct this year. Extensive searches have failed to uncover any specimens of the Malaysian herb in the last century, IUCN said.
Only one species moved to a lesser category of threat. One of the world's rarest parrots 15 years ago, the Mauritius Echo parakeet, eased back from critically endangered to only endangered. That was a result of close monitoring of its nesting sites, and supplementary feeding combined with a captive breeding and release program.
IUCN says 785 species have disappeared over the last 500 years. A further 65 are found only in artificial settings such as zoos.
The Red List, produced by a worldwide network of thousands of experts, includes some 41,000 species and subspecies around the globe.
Six Flags Discovery Kingdom Kills Another Animal: Death of Giraffe Leads to In Defense Of Animals Has Filing Complaint With USDA
What in the world is Six Flags doing keeping live animals at an amusement park? How in the world does the USDA allow this?
Article:
VALLEJO: ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST SIX FLAGS
09/07/07 10:40 PDT
VALLEJO (BCN)
http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2007/09/07/n/
HeadlineNews/COMPLAINT-FILED/resources_bcn_html
In Defense of Animals has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture asking them to investigate the death of a giraffe at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom on Wednesday.
Makonnen the 2-year-old giraffe died when a one-alarm fire broke out in the giraffe barn at the amusement park, according to Six Flags. IDA is asking the USDA to investigate whether the animal's death was caused by lack of proper facility maintenance. An electrical outlet in the barn malfunctioned and started the fire.
The USDA approves exhibitors' licenses for people or venues that are going to be exhibiting wild or exotic animals, said Les Schilbert, a consultant for IDA, so they will conduct an investigation to see if the license should be revoked.
According to the IDA the federal Animal Welfare Act requires exhibitors to maintain housing facilities in good repair so that animals are protected from injury. In the filed complaint IDA also cited concerns about the lack of overnight monitoring of park animals.
The fire broke out just after 2 a.m. Wednesday night, according to a park spokeswoman. Two giraffes in an outside corral were led away from the flames, but Makonnen was inside the giraffe barn and perished.
Article:
VALLEJO: ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST SIX FLAGS
09/07/07 10:40 PDT
VALLEJO (BCN)
http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2007/09/07/n/
HeadlineNews/COMPLAINT-FILED/resources_bcn_html
In Defense of Animals has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Agriculture asking them to investigate the death of a giraffe at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom on Wednesday.
Makonnen the 2-year-old giraffe died when a one-alarm fire broke out in the giraffe barn at the amusement park, according to Six Flags. IDA is asking the USDA to investigate whether the animal's death was caused by lack of proper facility maintenance. An electrical outlet in the barn malfunctioned and started the fire.
The USDA approves exhibitors' licenses for people or venues that are going to be exhibiting wild or exotic animals, said Les Schilbert, a consultant for IDA, so they will conduct an investigation to see if the license should be revoked.
According to the IDA the federal Animal Welfare Act requires exhibitors to maintain housing facilities in good repair so that animals are protected from injury. In the filed complaint IDA also cited concerns about the lack of overnight monitoring of park animals.
The fire broke out just after 2 a.m. Wednesday night, according to a park spokeswoman. Two giraffes in an outside corral were led away from the flames, but Makonnen was inside the giraffe barn and perished.
Louisiana State University Buys Another Live Tiger as Mascot: Ridiculous Move Exposes Lack of Concern in General for Endangered Animals
Absolutely ridiculous that a university is allowed to have a rare, live animal. How could they possibly care for such an animal?
Those tempted to be fooled by the foolish words of the LSU chancellor below, think again.
Article:
Animal rights groups: LSU tiger must go
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/strange/
article_212102553.shtml
Published: 8, 2007 at 8:49 PM
BATON ROUGE, La., 8 (UPI) -- Louisiana State University’s decision to acquire another live tiger mascot has outraged some animal rights activists.
Mike VI, a 2-year-old male from an animal rescue organization in Indiana, is a Bengal-Siberian mix. The university’s previous mascot died in May of kidney failure.
The mascot’s housing is luxurious compared to many zoos, with air-conditioning, a wading pool and a waterfall. Mike’s medical care comes from the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine.
“He probably gets better medical treatment than most of us,” LSU Chancellor Sean O’Keefe told The New York Times. “He’s one charmed cat.”
But the university is coping with a growing sensitivity to animal treatment. Louisiana recently banned cockfighting, joining the other 49 states, and some in the state legislature say LSU should give up its tiger.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals agrees.
“As grandiose as Mike’s expensive habitat may look, it is inadequate for a tiger,” Lisa Wathne, a PETA captive exotic animal specialist, told the Times. “The whole idea of carting this animal to a sporting event with screaming people is stressful to any wild animal.”
Those tempted to be fooled by the foolish words of the LSU chancellor below, think again.
Article:
Animal rights groups: LSU tiger must go
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/strange/
article_212102553.shtml
Published: 8, 2007 at 8:49 PM
BATON ROUGE, La., 8 (UPI) -- Louisiana State University’s decision to acquire another live tiger mascot has outraged some animal rights activists.
Mike VI, a 2-year-old male from an animal rescue organization in Indiana, is a Bengal-Siberian mix. The university’s previous mascot died in May of kidney failure.
The mascot’s housing is luxurious compared to many zoos, with air-conditioning, a wading pool and a waterfall. Mike’s medical care comes from the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine.
“He probably gets better medical treatment than most of us,” LSU Chancellor Sean O’Keefe told The New York Times. “He’s one charmed cat.”
But the university is coping with a growing sensitivity to animal treatment. Louisiana recently banned cockfighting, joining the other 49 states, and some in the state legislature say LSU should give up its tiger.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals agrees.
“As grandiose as Mike’s expensive habitat may look, it is inadequate for a tiger,” Lisa Wathne, a PETA captive exotic animal specialist, told the Times. “The whole idea of carting this animal to a sporting event with screaming people is stressful to any wild animal.”
Three Former Circus Employees Join Federal Lawsuit Against Ringling Brothers And Barnum & Bailey Circus Under The Endangered Species Act
Once again, this suit “…alleges that Ringling Bros. mistreats and abuses the Asian elephants it uses in shows all across the country.”
An excellent move.
For more on the cruel truth behind the cruelty of the circus see http://www.circuses.com/
Article:
Elephants Beaten with Bull Hooks in the Name of Entertainment
Posted by: Liz in Animal Rights, Peace
http://willienelsonpri.com/peace/365/elephants-
beaten-with-bull-hooks-in-the-name-of-entertainment.html
Former Ringling Brothers Employees Bolster Federal Lawsuit Against Circus
Washington, D.C. (Aug. 29, 2007) – The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and others seek permission for three former circus employees to join in their federal lawsuit against Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus under the Endangered Species Act. The suit alleges that Ringling Bros. mistreats and abuses the Asian elephants it uses in shows all across the country.
Former Ringling Bros. employees Archele Hundley, Margaret Tom and Robert Tom Jr. witnessed elephant cruelty before leaving the circus last summer. Their observations reaffirm evidence previously described by existing plaintiff and former Ringling Bros. employee Tom Rider, which includes the routine striking of elephants with bull hooks, and chaining of the animals for long periods of time.
Hundley, who quit the circus because she found the mistreatment of the animals too upsetting, recalled an incident where notorious animal trainer, Sacha Houcke used a bull hook in an attempt to force an elephant named Baby to lie down.
After smacking her with the bull hook repeatedly with no success, Houcke inserted the bull hook into Baby’s ear canal, and while holding the bull hook’s handle with both hands, he pulled down on Baby’s ear with all of his weight, causing her to bleed profusely and squeal in pain.
In describing an episode that happened earlier this year when an elephant named Asia defecated on one of the dancers during her routine, Margaret Tom stated that she “witnessed two guys beat Asia the minute she left the stage, hitting her at least 10 times with bull hooks, making her scream.”
Margaret Tom’s husband, Robert Tom Jr., reported that elephants are hit with bull hooks daily. He described an elephant who bled from the back and screamed in pain from a beating that lasted approximately 30 minutes. The trainer exerted so much energy that “he would periodically sit in a chair to take a break, then return to the elephant and start hooking again.”
“These witnesses reinforce what we know Ringling Bros. is anxious to hide,” said Tracy Silverman, General Counsel for AWI. “We are pleased that these former employees have come forward to reveal what goes on behind the scenes of the big tent, and we are eager to present this evidence in court.”
The Washington, D.C. law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal is representing AWI and its co-plaintiffs, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Fund for Animals, the Animal Protection Institute and another former Ringling employee, Tom Rider.
Trial is expected to commence sometime next year.
Contact: Tracy Silverman, Esq.: (703) 836-4300/tracy@awionline.org
The Animal Welfare Institute has worked for over 56 years to reduce the unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
An excellent move.
For more on the cruel truth behind the cruelty of the circus see http://www.circuses.com/
Article:
Elephants Beaten with Bull Hooks in the Name of Entertainment
Posted by: Liz in Animal Rights, Peace
http://willienelsonpri.com/peace/365/elephants-
beaten-with-bull-hooks-in-the-name-of-entertainment.html
Former Ringling Brothers Employees Bolster Federal Lawsuit Against Circus
Washington, D.C. (Aug. 29, 2007) – The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and others seek permission for three former circus employees to join in their federal lawsuit against Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus under the Endangered Species Act. The suit alleges that Ringling Bros. mistreats and abuses the Asian elephants it uses in shows all across the country.
Former Ringling Bros. employees Archele Hundley, Margaret Tom and Robert Tom Jr. witnessed elephant cruelty before leaving the circus last summer. Their observations reaffirm evidence previously described by existing plaintiff and former Ringling Bros. employee Tom Rider, which includes the routine striking of elephants with bull hooks, and chaining of the animals for long periods of time.
Hundley, who quit the circus because she found the mistreatment of the animals too upsetting, recalled an incident where notorious animal trainer, Sacha Houcke used a bull hook in an attempt to force an elephant named Baby to lie down.
After smacking her with the bull hook repeatedly with no success, Houcke inserted the bull hook into Baby’s ear canal, and while holding the bull hook’s handle with both hands, he pulled down on Baby’s ear with all of his weight, causing her to bleed profusely and squeal in pain.
In describing an episode that happened earlier this year when an elephant named Asia defecated on one of the dancers during her routine, Margaret Tom stated that she “witnessed two guys beat Asia the minute she left the stage, hitting her at least 10 times with bull hooks, making her scream.”
Margaret Tom’s husband, Robert Tom Jr., reported that elephants are hit with bull hooks daily. He described an elephant who bled from the back and screamed in pain from a beating that lasted approximately 30 minutes. The trainer exerted so much energy that “he would periodically sit in a chair to take a break, then return to the elephant and start hooking again.”
“These witnesses reinforce what we know Ringling Bros. is anxious to hide,” said Tracy Silverman, General Counsel for AWI. “We are pleased that these former employees have come forward to reveal what goes on behind the scenes of the big tent, and we are eager to present this evidence in court.”
The Washington, D.C. law firm Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal is representing AWI and its co-plaintiffs, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Fund for Animals, the Animal Protection Institute and another former Ringling employee, Tom Rider.
Trial is expected to commence sometime next year.
Contact: Tracy Silverman, Esq.: (703) 836-4300/tracy@awionline.org
The Animal Welfare Institute has worked for over 56 years to reduce the unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search for More Content
Custom Search
