Curious George Books and Movie not Just Fun and Games: Concern of Imperialism, Animal Abuse, and Bad Parenting Legitimately Voiced.

I think it’s safe to say that any thinking individual can see that the books and movie of Curious George are based on imperialism and animal abuse at the very least. I mean, he was stolen from the jungle and placed in a zoo. Need I say more?

Even the film's director admitted that the story has some serious issues with it’s core and that it had to be changed in order to be put onto film in an acceptable manner.

Matthew O'Callaghan, told The Chronicle this week that the script's few changes from the books were made in the name of story-telling and character development.

“The film's director, Matthew O'Callaghan, told The Chronicle this week that the script's few changes from the books were made in the name of story-telling and character development.”

"You can't just have the Man with the Yellow Hat go over there (to Africa) and stuff George into a bag and bring him to a zoo like in the book," O'Callaghan said. "That just wouldn't work."

Article:

Curiously, new monkey movie lands in middle of cultural battle

Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=

/c/a/2006/02/10/MNG73H6A5U1.DTL

Friday, February 10, 2006

Monkey business: The Man in the Yellow Hat and his simian...

For the politically correct Bay Area parent, the "Curious George" children's books are a minefield of cultural horrors through which to tiptoe. Imperialism. Animal abuse. Bad parenting.

Puh-leeeeze, George's defenders say. They're children's books, whose charm has not dimmed -- 25 million books and countless swag sold -- even if ideas about political correctness have evolved since the first George adventure was published in 1941. Sometimes a speechless, mischievous monkey is just that -- a monkey, not a metaphor. Besides, George's tales are no more un-PC than those of that royalist warmonger, Babar.

Both camps are wondering how "Curious George," the animated movie that premieres today, will translate details of the popular series of children's books for the more heightened sensitivities of 2006.

The Curious George oeuvre was the work of the husband-and-wife team of H.A. and Margaret Rey, German Jews who escaped France with the first book's manuscript as the Nazis invaded. Most of the seven stories they wrote feature the antics of a monkey whose sweet curiosity gets him in trouble until he's rescued by the nameless Man with the Yellow Hat, George's keeper/parental figure/pal with bail money.

To some, that's the core of an unhealthy relationship.

"The books are really irresponsible to me. It's sickening, really," said Robin Roth, managing editor of www.arkonline.com, an animal welfare Web site.

Start with the Caucasian, gun-carrying Man with the Yellow Hat venturing to Africa (imperialism alert!) to harvest wildlife for a zoo (animal repression alert!). Continue with George being unsupervised and allowed to smoke a pipe and huff ether (bad parenting alert!), and it's a wonder there aren't pickets already forming around movie theaters.

Roth, a high school English teacher in Los Angeles, writes on her animal rights Web site that "Curious George" reveals "the sinister side of a corrupt wildlife trade with perilous roots in Western imperialism." When the mischievous George is sent to jail, "the picture of the forlorn little primate alone in his cell conjures haunting images of countless monkeys lingering in laboratories, suffering silently and alone."

That's a bit of a stretch, say the book's defenders, such as Frederick Meekins of the Web site www.theconservativevoice.com.

"It's not like George ends up being used in laboratory experimentation," Meekins writes on his site. "From what's depicted in the storybooks, it always looked like he had a pretty good life, as do many other zoo animals."

The filmmakers steer a middle ground in the G-rated film, scrubbing up some of the books' more politically incorrect tones while keeping the old-school animation and simple story line.

While George still doesn't talk, the Man with the Yellow Hat -- goofily voiced by comic actor Will Ferrell -- now has a name (Ted) and a more palatable backstory than being a game hunter. Sort of. He's trying to save the museum he works for by retrieving an African idol and making it the centerpiece of a new exhibition. (Third World plundering alert!)

Ted in the film is more of George's buddy, while the Man with the Yellow Hat in the books was more of a parental figure -- and an absentee one, at that. He'd leave George in the morning, making him just another latchkey monkey with no discernible supervision.

The film's director, Matthew O'Callaghan, told The Chronicle this week that the script's few changes from the books were made in the name of story-telling and character development.

"You can't just have the Man with the Yellow Hat go over there (to Africa) and stuff George into a bag and bring him to a zoo like in the book," O'Callaghan said. "That just wouldn't work."

Meekins' take as posted on www.theconservativevoice.com:

"If we are to carry this perspective of Western man as world exploiter to its ultimate conclusion, isn't it just as offensive for the Man in the Yellow Hat to be an archaeologist despoiling the material culture of spiritually enlightened primitives? After all, isn't it inherently worse to take someone else's property than some monkey that doesn't even belong to anyone?"

The movie sidesteps these questions with an old-fashioned man-monkey friendship. George becomes enamored of Ted when the yellow-clad curator shows him a bit of attention that the parents of his other jungle pals don't; George's parents aren't seen. So the monkey stows away on Ted's ship and follows him home to New York City.

"It was a likeability thing for me," said the 44-year-old O'Callaghan, who read the books as a child and has enjoyed them with his three children. "You wouldn't like (the Man with the Yellow Hat) if he was mean to George."

Like, say, by stuffing him in a bag and transporting him across the Atlantic to a zoo, as the Man with the Yellow Hat does in the first book. As the monkey is whisked away from the jungle, the authors write, "George was sad, but he was still a little curious."

Unlike the literary George, the celluloid George doesn't smoke from a pipe or take a hit of ether. While T-shirts depicting George laid out next to an ether bottle (from "Curious George Takes a Job") have been a popular seller in Haight Street novelty shops for years, O'Callaghan was leery of including the scene in a G-rated movie.

"You don't want to give kids the idea to sniff stuff and pass out," he said.

A couple of parents who attended a San Francisco preview of the film -- both of whom enjoyed the movie with their elementary-school-age kids -- said they noticed that the celluloid George isn't punished for his mischief-making in the film; in the book, he's jailed.

Hollywood George doesn't even spend time in a zoo -- where his print counterpart ends up at the end of the first book -- aside from popping by to stir up some playful chaos.

"I really liked it, but he didn't seem to get in much trouble here," said Kara Korbel, an affordable-housing specialist who lives in Oakland. "In the books, the Man with the Yellow Hat was always yelling at him."

"But here, nothing seems to happen to him until the end," said her friend Joanna Gritz, an Oakland resident who saw it with her two children, ages 4 and 9.

Sending George to jail "just raised too many questions," O'Callaghan said. "Why would you send a monkey off to a human jail with other humans? In the '40s that was probably OK, but not now. It would involve too much explaining."

Any time you adapt a popular book into a movie, O'Callaghan said, there are going to be people who don't like it for one reason or another.

"And I'm sure there's going to people who say it's too soft," he said. "But who reads 'Curious George?' Young children."

In the UK and Scotland, they Love to Eat Shark: Doing Their Part to Head Some Species of Shark Toward Extinction.

Besides the obvious, what makes this of concern is the following:

“The sharks are being caught and killed faster than they can breed. It is estimated that by 2017 nearly 20 species of shark will be extinct. The trend is thought to be linked to the decline of other fish species, coupled with a drive to get more people to eat fish as a healthy alternative to meat.”

Article:

Shark protest bites in Capital


http://search.scotsman.com/

ANIMAL rights activists have called for a boycott on a restaurant selling shark stir-fry in a bid to halt demand for the fish's meat.

Khublai Khan's in Assembly Street, Leith, has come under fire for selling the shark meat as part of its Mongolian feast.

Advocates for Animals wrote to the restaurant last year after it emerged that they had started serving zebra among their other exotic meats.

The restaurant, which also offers Li Mak - shark and prawn puffs with a lemon and chilli mayo - as a starter, is known for its selection of exotic meats, including kangaroo, yak, ostrich and springbok.

But most worrying for animal rights groups is the inclusion of shark on the menu, with many species already close to extinction from over-fishing.

At present it is thought that more than 100 million sharks are taken from the seas each year, and demand for shark meat is booming, with supermarkets in Europe, South America and the USA now stocking the meat.

Last year alone, UK fishermen landed 760 tonnes of shark with a market value of £631,000. In the same year the UK imported an additional 2530 tonnes, equivalent to approximately 632 lorries of the meat, worth more than £3,532,000.

Ross Minett, director of Advocates for Animals, said: "We were very disappointed to hear that Khublai Khan's had jumped on the exotic meat bandwagon and had chosen to sell shark meat.

"Virtually every species of shark population is in decline.

Restaurants like Khublai Khan's should be ensuring their meats are sourced ethically but they think they can sell shark meat to unsuspecting customers.

"We would urge conservation-conscious people not to eat at Khublai Khan's until they have taken shark meat off the menu."

The sharks are being caught and killed faster than they can breed. It is estimated that by 2017 nearly 20 species of shark will be extinct. The trend is thought to be linked to the decline of other fish species, coupled with a drive to get more people to eat fish as a healthy alternative to meat.

The Food Standards Agency has advised against giving children shark meat.

And worldwide concern is growing over the threat to the animals. Last year a restaurant in the top Egyptian resort of Sharm El Sheikh removed shark from its menu after protests by divers and conservationists led to major companies such as Nestlé, Coca Cola and Heineken withdrawing support for the restaurant.

Ali Hood, director of conservation with the UK Shark Trust, said: "The legislation protecting sharks in EU waters is pitiful, and pretty much every species is 'legitimate', even though numbers are declining rapidly.

"Sharks do not have a life-cycle that can sustain heavy fishing, because they breed slowly, live for a long time and mature late, so it takes them a long time to replenish their population. People can make a difference by voting with their feet and if we can reduce or halt demand for shark meat, then it will do some good."

An employee of the restaurant, who asked not to be named, said that the shark meat they used was provided by a reputable Scottish frozen foods wholesale company and stressed that it was not illegal to sell shark in the UK.

He said: "We have had this on offer for over ten years and it is widely available in Britain. If this group really want to do something about it perhaps they should speak to the company that sells it to us." The restaurant owner, Andrew McRobbie, was unavailable for comment as he is currently out of the country.

In New Mexico, Bill to Set Higher Civil Penalties for Hunters who Illegally Kill Trophy Animals Passed the Senate Today

Good, but how about jail. After all, the guilty party did take a life. So, is a fine really enough? Common sense says no.

Higher penalties for poaching trophy animals OK'd by Senate

www.kiva.com

SANTA FE The State Game Commission could set higher civil penalties for hunters who illegally kill trophy animals under a bill the Senate passed today.

The bill authorizes the commission to designate certain game animals, birds and fish as trophy animals, set a value on them, and establish penalties for illegally taking them that would be high enough to serve as a deterrent to poaching.

The bill's supporters say under current law, the penalties are too low -- for example, 500 dollars for an elk _ to deter poachers, whose profit from selling trophy animals may far exceed any fine they pay.

The bill went to the House on a unanimous vote.

Mississippi State University Attempts to Hide Animal Abuse Records: Animal Rights Group Sues Over a Violation of the Mississippi Public Records Act

Hummm, what are they trying to hide?

Animal rights group sues MSU

http://www.reflector-online.com/vnews/

display.v/ART/2006/02/10/43ecd67f476a7

by Aaron Burdette

February 10, 2006

The College of Veterinary Medicine is located in Wise Center off Blackjack Road.

A lawsuit filed by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals will send Mississippi State University to court over an alleged violation of the Mississippi Public Records Act.

The lawsuit, which was filed in January, is intended to force MSU to release documents of a public nature that include information on animal research conducted by the university, said Lori Kettler, PETA's counsel on the issue. The research was funded by Iams, a pet-food company that PETA has boycotted since 1999 due to research methods the organization has deemed cruel.

The Public Records Act says that fees assessed for the release of public documents should not exceed the amount that is required for searching for, reviewing, duplicating and mailing the documents, if needed.

When PETA first requested documentation regarding MSU's research practices, the university asked for over $40,000 to procure about 500 pages of documentation, Kettler said. After several adjustments and price reductions, the university requested a fee that amounted to $52.68 per page for 19 pages of documentation, she said.

"The excessive fee MSU wants in exchange for the information would prevent any ordinary person from access to that information and, in essence, eviscerates the Public Records Act," Kettler said.

The university handled the request in the manner most befitting its magnitude, said Maridith Geuder, interim director of university relations.

"The university tried to respond based on the scope of the request. MSU feels its response was the appropriate one," she said.

The university refused to release some documentation to PETA because it was said to contain proprietary information, Kettler said.

Proprietary information refers to information related to a company's products, including research, financial, manufacturing and marketing information.

The documentation requested is meant to reveal certain aspects of MSU's experimentation, a Jan. 18 press release from PETA said.

"PETA seeks information regarding the number of animals used, the nature of the procedures to which the animals are subjected, the care of the animals and the final disposition of the animals," Kettler said.

"This information will be released because none of it can be characterized as proprietary. The fee will be revised to reflect a more accurate and reasonable one," she said.

The organization has requested similar information from approximately 20 other universities in America and has never been quoted a fee of this size for such documentation, Kettler said.

MSU is handling the matter in the most professional way possible, Geuder said.

"The university is handling the case through the proper channels," she said. "MSU will conduct its business outside of the public forum as per its policy."

Undercover Documentary will Air 2-21 on Pet Theft and How Animal Testing Facilities Really Get Dogs and Cats: USDA and the World of Class B Dealers

Undercover Documentary will Air 2-21 on Pet Theft and How Animal Testing Facilities Really Get Dogs and Cats: They Expose the World of Class B Dealers, Bunchers, Auctions and USDA Complicity in Pet Theft

The details of the documentary are found below. It have also included some quotes from the producers on what was uncovered in this documentary, as they were able to get someone undercover at Martin Creek Kennel and other facilities. Again, you just won’t believe it and the cruelty that was uncovered. It’s hard to comprehend.

I encourage all, (including animal haters) to see how research facilities really get dogs and cats. Dog or cat lovers, get ready. Your anger will boil over when you learn of the truth. The truth that I mention again, is supported by the USDA.

If you don’t have HBO, then at least read the quotes below and visit the site for the documentary. You will learn a lot. The site can be found at:

Dealing Dogs: The Betrayal of Man’s Best Friends

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/dealingdogs/index.html

Dealing Dogs

Each year, 42,000 dogs are sold to veterinary schools and research labs by Class B dealers, who are required by federal law to buy the animals from pounds, shelters and small breeders and to treat them humanely. However, many Class B dealers violate the law. DEALING DOGS exposes the abuses that took place at one of America's most notorious Class B dealers - Martin Creek Kennel in Arkansas. Premieres Tuesday, February 21 at 10pm (ET/PT).

Here’s a few excerpts from the producers of the show on the situation with bunchers and in particular C.C. Baird. You won’t believe it. The interview can be found here:

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/dealingdogs/

interview.html

Well, C.C. Baird keeps about between five to seven hundred dogs in a kennel. He sells them to laboratories for experimentation. Now, either you agree with that or you don't, but it is legal. What was very bad about what he was doing was where he was getting those dogs, and then how he was treating them when he had them. He was getting them from guys known as bunchers, who would sell him dogs. They would claim that they had bred these dogs, but in many cases they had taken a van, gone around and taken them off people's lawns. So he would acquire them from wherever he could, really. And then he would turn around and sell them from anywhere between two hundred and fifty to four hundred dollars. So he was making a lot of money.

And the USDA, which licensed him, has fairly comprehensive rules about the conditions in which dogs are supposed to be kept by B dealers -- requirements about the amount of cage space, the access to veterinary care, food, cleanliness. And basically, what Pete was doing was documenting both the violations of the USDA regulations, which fall under the Animal Welfare Act, and the means by which he seemed to acquire these dogs, and dispose of the dogs. I mean, one of the most harrowing sequences in the film is a visit that we made to what's known as "the Trench," which is an area on Baird's property. It's an open trench some hundred feet long that contains the carcasses in various stages of decay of dogs that were disposed of from the kennel. A lot of them died of disease, a lot of them died because they were over-crowded and they were in fights. Some of them died because they had diseases and then their organs were harvested, and sold to research labs.

Because often when a dog was ill, it was cheaper for them to dispose of him or a dog that was supposedly a "biter." One of the most horrific scenes in the film is the story of a little black dog who one of the kennel guys claimed was a "biter." And he was summarily taken out and shot in the head. And Pete got it on camera. It's pretty rough stuff.

Well, there is a bigger issue, which is that the USDA are supposed to inspect these dealers. There aren't enough USDA inspectors to go around, but many of them don't do their job. And so we hope that there is a rethink within the USDA about actually inspecting these dealers, and we hope that they make B dealers illegal.

End of summary.

I recently wrote about the case of C.C. Baird and Martin Creek Kennel in Arkansas. This disgrace was a Class B dealer, who literally stole dogs and cats from yards and sold them to animal testing facilities as well as to veterinary schools. He did this with the help of bunchers: http://geari.blogspot.com/2005/09/

noted-dog-and-cat-dealers-plead-guilty.html

This is an amazing development. I had no idea that anyone was actually working on a documentary of the issues of how research labs and veterinary schools actually get the animals they test on. As I mentioned, one particularly bad dealer is C.C. Baird. This documentary takes you behind the scenes of his disgusting operation. You wont’ believe that this man actually made millions off stealing dogs and cats from yards and then legally selling them to animal testing labs and veterinary schools. And it’s all legal via the USDA. I also have much on this form of pet theft at:

http://geari.blogspot.com/2005/09/

noted-dog-and-cat-dealers-plead-guilty.html

But the best thing would be for all to watch the documentary. It will educate you fully on this terrible issue.

Another Baby Elephant dies During Birth: Again, Politicians Look to themselves Rather than the Mother who Really is Suffering a Loss

I just love it when the politicians claim everything is theirs. She even claims that the baby elephant was hers. She’ll go home to her cushy home tonight and forget while having a drink while the real mother morns in a smelly, stained, hard concrete enclosure. Yeah, she cares for Genny C. All she cares about is how much money she lost now that the zoo won’t have a baby elephant to exploit.

Read this quote:

"Our baby elephant has died," said County Executive Maggie Brooks. "Our concern now shifts to Genny C and her well-being."

Ok, well, one, it wasn’t your baby, and two, if your concern if for Genny C, then let her go to a sanctuary. Perhaps they can handle a delivery without having the calf die. Perhaps delivery in a smelly, stained, hard concrete enclosure is what led to the death of the calf.

But no, they’ll continue to think only of themselves and how THEY lost a calf – not Genny C, the real mother. They’ll just artificially impregnate her again – real comfortable experience I bet. This was her third artificial impregnation.

Article:

Baby elephant dies: 'Our hearts are sad'

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

article?AID=/20060209/NEWS01/602100357/1002/NEWS

Marketta Gregory

Staff writer

The baby elephant expected at Seneca Park has died during delivery, county officials announced today. The elephant's 28-year-old mother Genny C went into labor at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday, but it was determined by 10 a.m. that the calf was not responding.

"Our baby elephant has died," said County Executive Maggie Brooks. "Our concern now shifts to Genny C and her well-being."

One of the calf's feet made it outside the uterus but the calf was not properly aligned for delivery through the birth canal, said Jeff Wyatt, director of animal health and conservation.

Experts from around the country were consulted and some even flew into Rochester to help, but they couldn't save the calf, which was still in its mother's womb.

Genny C is doing well, though, said Wyatt, who has slept at the zoo since Monday. The elephant is eating and acting normally and Wyatt's hope is that the calf will shift in the uterus and be expelled without complications.

Genny C is on an antibiotic as a precautionary measure, Wyatt said.

Work on an expanded elephant exhibit will continue, officials said, and Genny C will be included when it opens to the public this spring.

This was the third time Genny C had been artificially inseminated. That, along with her age and her recent experience, means that she will no longer be a candidate for reproduction.

"This reminds us of how unpredictable life can be," Brooks said. "Our hearts are sad but our hearts will heal."

Scummy Officials and Slimy Lawyer for Rosamond Gifford Zoo Try to Weasel out of Fine for Killing 4-Day-Old Baby Elephant Kedar:

By Miracle, the USDA Rejects their Requests.

Read this quote:

“The Syracuse zoo wanted to use the money for a construction project to make its elephant yard safer for a new baby elephant due in late spring.”

Funny, it’s only after they’re fined does the zoo want to make the changes that led to the death on Aug. 4, of Kedar, a 4-day-old male Asian elephant. Kedar fell into a pool and later died that day from a twisted intestinal tract.

According to the article, “…[t]he condition existed for 14 years, but had never been cited during annual federal inspections…

And, “[t]he zoo was cited in November for failing to have barriers that would have prevented Kedar from entering the pool.

“By agreeing to the civil penalty, the county-owned zoo will not have to admit to two violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act related to the death of a baby elephant.”

So now they can’t even just admit their lack of caring and cheapness and just pay a fine. $10,765 is nothing compared to the pain the 4 day-old elephant endured. What a short painful existence Kedar had.

And then they have their slick lawyer try to get out of it.

Now I ask you – should they (or zoos in general) have elephants when it’s jacks like these who are responsible for them?

USDA rejects zoo's proposal for fine Thursday, February 09, 2006

By Mark Weiner

Staff writer

Federal officials have rejected the Rosamond Gifford Zoo's request to redirect a $10,000 fine the zoo must pay for violations related to last year's death of a baby elephant.

The Syracuse zoo wanted to use the money for a construction project to make its elephant yard safer for a new baby elephant due in late spring.

In a letter to Rep. James Walsh, the administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service insisted the fine is "fair and appropriate" and that it be paid as soon as possible.

The $10,765 from Onondaga County taxpayers will go into the U.S. Treasury's general fund to support President Bush's proposed $2.77 trillion federal budget, a USDA official said.

If the county decides to challenge the fine in court, the zoo could face more severe consequences, USDA-APHIS Administrator W. Ron DeHaven wrote

in his letter to Walsh.

DeHaven wrote, "We wish to emphasize that the stipulation agreement represents our offer to resolve this case without incurring the time and expense involved with formally pursuing enforcement action through the administrative law process."

County Attorney Anthony Rivizzigno said the federal agency left him with few choices.

"Unfortunately, we're going to pay the fine," Rivizzigno said Wednesday. "We're disappointed we can't use the money to make some enhancements to the zoo exhibit. This has been dragging on for a long time. It doesn't look like it's going to go anywhere. So it's time to put it behind us."

Dan Gage, Walsh's spokesman, said the congressman has few options left. "We're disappointed in the decision," Gage said. "We would rather have the money forwarded into an account that would be used to upgrade the facility."

By agreeing to the civil penalty, the county-owned zoo will not have to admit to two violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act related to the death of a baby elephant.

On Aug. 4, Kedar, a 4-day-old male Asian elephant, fell into a pool and later died that day from a twisted intestinal tract.

The zoo was cited in November for failing to have barriers that would have prevented Kedar from entering the pool. The condition existed for 14 years, but had never been cited during annual federal inspections.

If the zoo refused to accept the penalty, the USDA said it could seek higher civil or criminal penalties for each violation.

The maximum penalty is $2,750 per count, per animal, per day for violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act.

"Sure, it's heavy-handed," Rivizzigno said of the USDA's policy. "That's how they get people to settle these cases."

Rivizzigno said he expects to have a check ready to send to the agency today, but first he will attempt one more appeal in a phone call to a USDA-APHIS deputy administrator.

© 2006 The Post-Standard. Used with permission.

Another Sicko “Man of Christ” Abuses Animals: Throws Puppies from the Back of a Truck and Starves the Rest.

Ah yes, another “man of Christ” who seemed to have missed the sermon on Christ’s teachings of respect for all of god’s creations. Or, perhaps he was one of those who saw the add in the back of a magazine to send in 50 dollars to become a pastor. Either way, he’s way off.

Pastor Accused Of Tossing Puppies

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/national/

newsshare_article.aspx?storyid=50245

By Lindy Thackston

First Coast News

JACKSONVILLE, FL - Several puppies are getting special care at Animal Care and Control on the Westside.

One man called police this week after he says he saw someone throwing the puppies from the back of a pickup truck.

Police arrested 48-year-old Vincent Kohn on animal cruelty charges. He told police he's a local pastor.

Police say they found several more dogs at Kohn's home. The dogs were near starvation according to detectives.

The man who called police says he confronted Kohn right away.

"I got furious," said Bob Tiencken. "I told him to pick them animals up right now; I'm going to call police."

The dogs are being treated for various infections.

No word yet on whether the dogs will be put up for adoption.

Dog Abuser in Ashford, Alabama Forces Starving Dog to Eat the Skin from a Dead Dogs Head.

There are the two key things to note here: One is the conditions of the dogs – one dead and the other forced to eat the dead one.

The other is that someone had to report it in order for action to be taken and the one dog to be saved. A great example of the need of people to be proactive in these types of situations. If you see abuse, report it – preferably to a no kill shelter, but if not, to animal control and the police. If someone hadn’t have intervened, the other dog would have died a horribly painful death to.

I guess another thing to note is how easy she is getting off. Absolutely no justice here.

“Out of extreme hunger, the surviving dog appears to have eaten the skin and flesh from the deceased dog’s head.

The surviving dog was found after someone reported the alleged abuse to authorities. The two dogs were found in the woman’s fenced-in backyard on Choice Adams Road.”

Ashford woman charged with animal cruelty for the starvation death of dog

http://www.dothaneagle.com/

Jill Nolin / jnolin@dothaneagle.com

February 11, 2006

An Ashford woman is out of jail on bond for a charge of animal cruelty and her emaciated dog is recovering at the Dothan Animal Shelter.

Both are waiting for a judge’s decision.

Pamela Arsenault, 32, posted her $1,000 bond after being arrested Wednesday and charged in connection with the starvation death of one of her two German shepherds, according to Houston County Sheriff Lamar Glover.

Arsenault has been charged with one count of animal cruelty, which is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison and as much as a $1,000 fine.

Out of extreme hunger, the surviving dog appears to have eaten the skin and flesh from the deceased dog’s head.

The surviving dog was found after someone reported the alleged abuse to authorities. The two dogs were found in the woman’s fenced-in backyard on Choice Adams Road.

A judge will decide what happens to the living dog, the ribs of which could be seen even through his thick fur.

It is not believed that the other dog had been dead long.

50 Animals Killed When Flames Raced Through a Petting Zoo Barn: Many Unusual Species of Primates Killed as Well as Pigs, Sheep, Goats, Turkeys, Others

What a waste of life. My guess is squalor conditions aided or caused the fire. I doubt the victims were playing with matches. You can imagine the fear they experienced before their horrible death.

50 Animals Die in Fire

http://www.wzzm13.com/

TEMPERANCE, Mich. (AP) - At least 50 animals were killed when flames raced through a petting zoo barn in Monroe County near the Ohio border.

The blaze was discovered today around 1:45 a-m and destroyed the barn at Nature's Creek Petting Zoo in Temperance. Many unusual species of primates were killed.

No people were hurt, but the owners say they are saddened by the loss of the animals.

When firefighters arrived the building was in flames and the roof had already collapsed.

Bedford Township Fire Chief John Bofia says firefighters had the flames under control within about 30 minutes.

The cause of the blaze is under investigation.

The zoo was opened in May 1999. Among some of the animals it housed were pigs, sheep, goats, turkeys, chickens, peacocks, parrots and lizards.

Life Sciences Research Inc, Target of an Intensive Protest Campaign by Animal Rights Activists, was Forced to Start Trading Shares on the Pink Sheets

Interesting situation. It seems that Life Sciences Research Inc, which does animal research for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, was hoping to be listed on the “Big Board” of New York Stock Exchange. Instead of getting the listing, a campaign by activists MAY HAVE led to the resignation of the company's primary market maker, Legacy Trading, and Life Sciences Research suffered the indignity of being dropped to trading on the Pink Sheets.

Read on…..

LSRI Drops to Pink Sheets amid Animal Rights Action

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.

cfm/newsid/35016/story.htm

USA: February 10, 2006

NEW YORK - Embattled animal testing lab Life Sciences Research Inc, target of an intensive protest campaign by animal rights activists, was forced to start trading shares on the Pink Sheets this week, five months after it expected to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

"Delisting them to the Pink Sheets is not enough, so we are now moving into next stage of the campaign, which is getting them delisted from the Pink Sheets," Camille Hankins, co-founder of New York-based Win Animal Rights (WAR), said on Wednesday.

"The prize is to close down LSRI and stop that killing."

Life Sciences officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

The company, which does animal research for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry, was set to join the Big Board in September, when the NYSE suddenly and without explanation pulled the plug on the listing.

A month later, the company was still hoping to join the NYSE as promised.

But the campaign of intimidation and threats by animal rights activists led to the resignation of the company's primary market maker, Legacy Trading, and Life Sciences Research suffered the indignity of being dropped to trading on the Pink Sheets.

A Pink Sheets official, informed of WAR's aim to get the company delisted from the Pink Sheets, said there was nothing he could do about it.

"We are not a regulator," said the official, who asked that his name not be used.

He said the only way a company can be removed from the Pink Sheets was if the US Securities and Exchange Commission suspends trading or if brokers were to stop trading the company's shares.

Hankins said her group would continue its picketing protests against the company on almost a daily basis. The group, which accuses LSRI of profiting by the suffering and killing of animals, also plans to make executives of biotech companies attending a major conference in New York next week walk a gauntlet of protesters.

WAR activists have also threatened to step up their campaign by staging protests at the offices and homes of executives of Life Sciences' major investors and customers, including drug makers Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Novartis AG and Roche Holding AG .

Previous protests have taken place at the homes of LSRI's investors and market makers.

Another animal rights group, the Animal Liberation Front, claimed responsibility for spray-painting slogans across the walls of two New York-area yacht clubs frequented by employees of a Wall Street firm that was going to trade shares of Life Sciences. The firm then changed its mind.

Before the planned NYSE listing, contact information for hundreds of NYSE employees appeared on the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Web site (www.shac.net).

Life Sciences is the parent of British-based Huntingdon Life Sciences, which has long been a target of UK animal rights activists.

LSRI shares closed down 10 cents at $11.30 Wednesday. Shares were trading for about $18 on the Nasdaq Bulletin Board in September.

Story by Bill Berkrot

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

In Kansas, a Senate Bill Still in Committee Could Secure Protection of Animal Rights by Classifying Most Serious Acts of Animal Cruelty as Felonies

In Kansas, a Senate Bill Still in Committee Could Secure Protection of Animal Rights by Classifying the Most Serious Acts of Animal Cruelty as Felonies.

Though not an ideal law, this is a good sign. If states like Kansas are seeing the importance of locking up animal abusers, then the rest of the nation will follow.

Senate considers animal rights bill

http://kstatecollegian.com/article.php?a=8797

Published on Thursday, February 9, 2006

A Senate Bill still in committee could secure protection of animal rights by classifying the most serious acts of animal cruelty as felonies.

Steven Doll/Collegian

Holly Smith

Kansas State Collegian

Senate Bill 408, an animal’s rights bill, was scheduled for a vote in the Kansas Senate on Monday, but the bill is still in committee.

It becomes law, the bill would classify the most serious acts of animal cruelty as felonies.

It also would require offenders to undergo psychological counseling or anger management programs and would prohibit offenders from owning an animal for five years.

Kansas is one of nine states in which animal cruelty is not a felony.

Rep. Sydney Carlin (D-Manhattan) said she supports the bill.

“I am very supportive of doing something to stop the poor treatment of these animals who have no voice,” Carlin said.

“These people are showing very aggressive behavior because it’s against something that can’t protect itself, and that’s pretty aggressive.”

Donna Davis, registered veterinarian technician in the radiation department at the K-State Veterinary Medicine Teaching Hospital, said she has seen the result of animal cruelty while working at the hospital.

“A puppy was brought in that was found dead,” Davis said. “It had been kicked and beaten to death by the owner.”

Davis said three kittens were also brought in with gunshot wounds.

“These situations are just really hard to see and deal with,” she said. “People who do such horrible things to animals really have a lack of respect for an animal’s life.”

Davis said she supports the bill and thinks the tougher punishments might deter people from abusing animals.

“If these people saw a situation where someone was prosecuted with severe enough consequences they may think twice before hurting an animal,” she said.

Connie Ellis, vice president of the Animal Welfare Club, said she started a petition in September urging Kansas lawmakers to bring the bill up for vote.

“This needs to be brought to people’s attention,” Ellis, second-year veterinary medicine student, said. “This is a sick behavior that needs to be addressed more seriously.”

Ellis said she stresses the importance of rehabilitating those who are convicted of abusing animals.

“It’s not just about jail time. These people need help,” she said. “There is no point in putting them in jail without giving them the help to change their deep-seated neurosis.”

Ellis said she has seen situations in which animal cruelty was suspected and said these situations put veterinarians in tough positions.

“Without knowing what really happens we can only speculate,” Ellis said. “And it’s our job to report it, but when the law makes it really hard to prosecute, a lot of DAs don’t even want to pursue it.”

No posting yesterday for personal reasons. Now, let’s get back to it…..

Animal Haters Agree: The USDA will Break the Law, Circumvent Congress and Push Illegal Horse Slaughter: The US Moves One More Step Away from Democracy

Foreign-Owned Companies Have More Say than the Majority of US Citizens, Congress and the Laws of the United States.

I just received this update.

I could go off on this all day. Foreign companies without a right to vote have more say than even members of congress. This issue came to light via the despicable issue of horse slaughter, but it is not only exclusive to animal rights. As I mentioned, even animal haters will have to agree that this is much larger than animal rights and directly effects and touches on politics and issues of democracy. The facts couldn’t be more clear. I wrote about this issue back in 1-15-06 at:

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

horse-slaughter-by-foreign-companies.html.

Please read it for more information.

Essentially, a bipartisan effort backed strongly by a majority in both houses and actually signed into law banned horse slaughter. Well, it seems that the three foreign-owned companies who capture and slaughter horses from the US on US soil, and who have no say in the democratic process, used their money to pay off the USDA which helped them find a way to circumvent a law.

Again, this is a law signed and supported by a large majority (U.S. House of Representatives voted 269-158 and the U.S. Senate voted 69-28). It is the USDA who then helped foreign-owned companies find a way to break the law and subvert the will of US citizens, both houses of congress and the American process of supposed democracy. Well, I think we can all safely now agree that democracy no longer exists in the US (if it ever did), and that yes, it matters not where the companies or donors are from, it is they who have the say.

Here are a few paragraphs taken from the article below. I did this in order to pull out the important parts to help get to the idea of the issue. The full article is below.

“Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 269-158 and the U.S. Senate voted 69-28 to stop the slaughter of horses, effective March 10, 2006. On November 23, 2005, the slaughterhouses petitioned the USDA to establish a "fee-for-service" inspection system for horse slaughter in lieu of federally funded inspections, which Congress voted to end.”

"It is beyond our imagination in the U.S. Congress that the USDA would flout its mandate and spend tax dollars…to circumvent this law," said Representative John Sweeney (R-NY). "Even our most hardened opponents knew that the purpose of the amendment was to stop horse slaughter—there was never any question about that. It's disturbing that an agency like USDA feels it is appropriate to obstruct a law passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in Congress when their sole mission is to implement the law."

"The USDA is playing games and ignoring the directives of Congress while the lives of America's horses, who have served us faithfully and provided us with companionship, are at stake," said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of The HSUS. "By granting this eleventh-hour bid by the slaughterhouses to re-write the law, the USDA is thumbing its nose at Congress and trying to substitute the judgment of foreign gourmands for the judgment of our elected lawmakers."

"Why is the USDA acting in defense of three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants engaged in a brutal trade?" asked Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation. "The barbarity America's horses currently endure must be stopped as Congress has stated loud and clear. Congress sought to shut down the slaughter of American horses, not merely change the method by which inspections are funded."

“In a letter to USDA, 40 members of Congress wrote: "The agency must cease inspection of horses for slaughter. Failure to do so constitutes willful disregard of clear Congressional intent on the part of the USDA. The agency has absolutely no authority to circumvent a Congressional mandate and effectively rewrite an unambiguous law at the request of the horse-slaughter industry."

Article:

USDA Announces Its Decision to Make End Run Around Congressional Horse Slaughter Ban

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications

/press_releases/usda_end_run_horse_slaughter.html

February 7, 2006

WASHINGTON – Animal protection organizations today blasted the U.S. Department of Agriculture for announcing its intention to allow private inspections at three horse slaughterhouses, bypassing legislation that blocks inspections to shut down the horse slaughter operations.

USDA specifically announced it will issue an interim final rule tomorrow, granting the three horse slaughterhouses' emergency rulemaking request for voluntary, fee-for-service inspection of horses for slaughter. The USDA's rule will allow these European-owned companies—two in Texas, one in Illinois—to continue butchering tens of thousands of horses for foreign menus each year in direct circumvention of the recent Congressional amendment banning the use of federal funds to inspect horses destined for slaughter for human food.

"It is beyond our imagination in the U.S. Congress that the USDA would flout its mandate and spend tax dollars…to circumvent this law," said Representative John Sweeney (R-NY). "Even our most hardened opponents knew that the purpose of the amendment was to stop horse slaughter—there was never any question about that. It's disturbing that an agency like USDA feels it is appropriate to obstruct a law passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in Congress when their sole mission is to implement the law."

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 269-158 and the U.S. Senate voted 69-28 to stop the slaughter of horses, effective March 10, 2006. On November 23, 2005, the slaughterhouses petitioned the USDA to establish a "fee-for-service" inspection system for horse slaughter in lieu of federally funded inspections, which Congress voted to end.

"The USDA is playing games and ignoring the directives of Congress while the lives of America's horses, who have served us faithfully and provided us with companionship, are at stake," said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of The HSUS. "By granting this eleventh-hour bid by the slaughterhouses to re-write the law, the USDA is thumbing its nose at Congress and trying to substitute the judgment of foreign gourmands for the judgment of our elected lawmakers."

In a recent letter to Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns calling on the USDA to deny the plants' request, lawyers for The Humane Society of the United States, American Humane Association, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Society for Animal Protective Legislation, and Doris Day Animal League animal welfare groups pointed out that the fee-for-service proposal "would not only thwart an unequivocally expressed Congressional directive, it would also violate the Federal Meat Inspection Act's requirement that the United States Department of Agriculture, not private facilities, fund horse slaughter inspection."

"Granting this petition sets a damning precedent," said Holly Hazard, executive director of the Doris Day Animal League. "In circumventing the clear intent of our legislators to cease certain federal programs and simply buying the services of the executive branch without any policy directive from Congress, special interests have thwarted democracy."

"Why is the USDA acting in defense of three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants engaged in a brutal trade?" asked Chris Heyde, deputy legislative director for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation. "The barbarity America's horses currently endure must be stopped as Congress has stated loud and clear. Congress sought to shut down the slaughter of American horses, not merely change the method by which inspections are funded."

In a letter to USDA, 40 members of Congress wrote: "The agency must cease inspection of horses for slaughter. Failure to do so constitutes willful disregard of clear Congressional intent on the part of the USDA. The agency has absolutely no authority to circumvent a Congressional mandate and effectively rewrite an unambiguous law at the request of the horse-slaughter industry."

In light of this end run around Congress's clear mandate to halt the slaughter of horses, the animal protection groups continue to lobby for the passage of H.R. 503 and S. 1915, a permanent ban on horse slaughter for food, introduced by U.S. Reps. John Sweeney (R-NY), John Spratt (D-SC), and Ed Whitfield (R-KY) in the House, and U.S. Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in the Senate.

See Video Proof of the Evils of Bull Fighting: Not Everyone in Mexico Agrees with Bloody Bullfights

First, “Bull Fighting” needs to be in quotes. There’s no fight here – only cowards dressed up in tights in an unfair game. Keep reading to see why.

For more on the realities of bull fighting, see the descriptions and accompanying videos below. They will blow your mind. You cannot believe how cruel bullfighting is. Absolutely disgusting. These people all need to be tried for animal cruelty. If someone did this on a farm, they certainly would be. They are all found at: http://www.sharkonline.org/indexbullfighting.mv

Here is a good description of what happens at a bull fight. You’ll soon see why this is beyond cruelty:

A cowardly picador slams a spear into a bull from relative safety on top of a horse. The bull attacks the horse, believing it be the source of his torment. The horse is used as a living shield by a thug who doesn't know the meaning of integrity, bravery, or a fair fight.

1.2 MB

A bull in obvious physical distress can do nothing but stand and bleed, with several decorative tags still hanging from his mutilated body. During it all, sickeningly festive band music plays for the crowds.

2.0 MB

Crowds cheer as a mutilated bull named Bright Eyes falls to the ground once he's too weak to stand. Several matadors stand around waving their capes trying to look useful while the bull collapses.

2.2 MB

A matador approaches the fallen bull Bright Eyes from behind and knifes the animal in the back of the neck. The bull falls over with eyes bulging in shock and terror. The matador continues to cut the still consious animal, while children run over to see the gore and blood close up.

2.0 MB

After being tortured beyond imagination, the fallen bull Bright Eyes has to endure one more atrocity as his ear is cut off for a trophy. Blood runs down the skull and pools under the animal's head. Bright Eyes is somehow still alive and conscious, feeling every cut and jab. The crowd continues to cheer and whistle, fully aware of what has just happened.

3.7 MB

A matador drives a sword between the shoulders of a bull. As usual, the sword does not kill the victim, and the thugs run around the bull to make him move, so the sword will cut up his insides.

1.6 MB

Stabbed in the lungs, and spewing blood from his nose and mouth, a bull is run in circles by the killer thugs. This causes the sword to cut up the victim's insides.

1.2 MB

Bulls are rarely killed by the thrust of the sword, and this victim was no exception. As he lowers in agony and complete submission, a coward approaches him from behind. Even now the "bullfighter" has no courage!

1.9 MB

Still conscious, but paralyzed from being stabbed in the back of the neck to mutilate his spinal cord, the bull is dragged from the bullring by ropes tied around his back legs. He was butchered alive.

This is truly a sick game.

Article:

Animal rights protesters throw fruit, vegetables at fans going to bullfight

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/16890.html

Activists protested an event at Plaza Mexico a week after a bull was killed for charging into the stands

Wire services

El Universal

February 06, 2006

Police arrested 35 animal rights activists who threw fruit and vegetables at people going to a bullfight on the 60th anniversary of Mexico´s most famous bullring, local media reported.

Police outside the Plaza Mexico bullring held back the demonstrators, who waved banners with slogans such as "Stop This Massacre" and "No More Violence," but no arrests were made.

The protest came a week after a 503-kilogram (1,108-pound) bull named Pajarito - "Little Birdy" - jumped into the Plaza Mexico stands during a fight, hospitalizing two spectators.

Eventually, one of the bullfight participants crawled up into the stands to stab and kill the animal. The bullfight resumed 30 minutes after the incident.

Despite the incident, Sunday´s anniversary event was a sold-out affair, with 430-peso seats being resold by scalpers for 1,000 pesos.

Police said at least six people were arrested for scalping bullfight tickets.

Before Being Cooked Alive in Boiling Water, Lobsters in Maine Endure Life as Part of an Arcade Game: Love Maine Lobster Claw: Drunks in Bars Love it

It’s bad enough their fate is to be boiled alive. Now some lobsters in Maine have to endure living in an arcade game waiting for yahoos to pull them out with a mechanical arm. This takes amusement at the sake of another to a new level.

You can just see the amusement it will provide drunks in a bar. Yep, great idea – put drunks and live animals together. Always comes out positive right??!!

Article:

Arcade claw offers live lobster prizes

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/

articles/2006/02/06/arcade_claw_

offers_live_lobster_prizes/

By Clarke Canfield, Associated Press Writer | February 6, 2006

SCARBOROUGH, Maine --You don't have to be a fisherman to catch lobsters anymore. At a neighborhood store in this Portland suburb -- and at restaurants and bars in more than a dozen states -- customers can plunk down $2 for a chance to catch their very own lobster using a mechanical claw in an arcade-style game.

The apparatus is a new version of the old-style amusement game where players put in a quarter or two in hopes of grabbing a stuffed animal. But instead of plush toys, the Love Maine Lobster Claw game has a water-filled tank full of lobsters.

When a lobster is caught, the restaurants cook it for free and serve it with side dishes.

"He looks like a keeper," said Frank Margel of Westbrook, eyeing a mottled-green crustacean at Eight Corners Market before giving the game a try.

It's easier said than done, however.

Unlike stationary stuffed animals, the lobsters flap their tails, flail their claws and squirm this way and that, making them elusive prey.

"Those lobsters are lively. They're ready for competition," Margel said a minute later -- and $2 poorer -- after the crustacean slipped away.

Marine Ecological Habitats in Biddeford has been making the Love Maine Lobster game for just over a year and sold a couple of dozen, said Joe Zucchero, the company president.

The Maine-made machines can be found in restaurants and bars in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Maine, Zucchero said. A Florida company, The Lobster Zone Inc., makes a similar machine that it says can be found in more than 20 states.

The game has its critics. Animal rights activists contend it's cruel to toss a lobster into a boiling pot of water. And playing with the creatures before sending them to their deaths rubs some people the wrong way.

"Turning animal cruelty into a game is absolutely hideous," said Karin Robertson of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

A restaurant in Pittsburgh removed its lobster game last week in response to PETA's campaign against the machines.

Paul Carrozzi, owner of Roland's Seafood Grill, said he doesn't agree the machine is inhumane, but removed it after receiving threatening e-mails and calls. "It just wasn't worth it," he said.

Zucchero maintains that the machine has a gentle claw that won't hurt the animals.

"If it did," he said, "we'd have problems because then it would be destroying our inventory."

At Eight Corners Market, customers typically play the game 25 to 30 times a day and catch about eight or so lobsters a week, said store owner Peter Walsh, who also plans to sell lobsters out of the tank.

When the game's in play, it usually draws a crowd. A lighthouse-style beacon flashes on top of the machine when somebody catches a lobster.

"If somebody's playing this game and someone else walks in the store, I guarantee they'll play because they'll see how fun it is," Walsh said.

In Louisiana, Bill Bodin owns two of the machines, which he placed in seafood and Mexican restaurants in Lafayette. The machines do a brisk business, he said, especially when there are lines and people are looking for something to do -- or for their kids to do -- while waiting for a table.

At Eight Corners Market, Margel gets 30 seconds to catch a lobster for $2. Or he can get three plays for $5 or seven plays for $10.

Working a joystick and a pair of buttons, Margel lowers the claw, clamps it around the lobster and attempts to lift it out of the water. But the lobster fights back and escapes before he can deposit it in an opening and down a chute into his possession.

Margel leaves empty-handed, but he had good time.

"Who cares if you get a lobster for two bucks?" he said.

Brigitte Bardot Slams Romania for Dog Cull: Man Made Problem Deserves a Better Solution than Killing

Again, default to the kill. There are other solutions to this man-made problem. Consider the following from the article:

“The 100,000 stray dogs in the capital are considered a legacy of former communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's decision to demolish many houses in the 1980s. Dogs were abandoned by people rehoused in small flats.

In 2001, Bardot pledged to donate $150,000 to fund mass sterilization designed to save stray dogs from death, but former Bucharest mayor Traian Basescu, now president, abandoned the program after a month and ordered culling to continue.”

Article:

Brigitte Bardot slams Romania for dog cull

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

cid=2621&ncid=2621&e=1&u=/nm/20060

204/people_nm/romania_dogs_dc_1

Sat Feb 4, 9:00 AM ET

Former French film star turned animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot slammed Romania on Saturday for culling stray dogs after a Japanese man was bitten to death in Bucharest.

The capital's mayor Adriean Videanu announced immediately after the incident last Sunday that the time stray dogs could be kept in shelters before being put down would be shortened.

"When I think that the only way that has been found is to kill them, I tell you it's not nice what your government is doing," Bardot told Radio France Internationale Romania.

The 68-year-old Japanese businessman bled to death in central Bucharest after a stray dog bit him in the leg, severing a vital artery.

Foreign tourists often cite the packs of dogs roaming freely on the streets of Bucharest among the reasons they shy away from the capital of Romania, which plans to join the European Union as early as in 2007.

Dozens of people are bitten daily. Bucharest residents are split, some advocating culling and others feeding the stray dogs on the streets and building makeshift shelters for them.

The 100,000 stray dogs in the capital are considered a legacy of former communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu's decision to demolish many houses in the 1980s. Dogs were abandoned by people rehoused in small flats.

In 2001, Bardot pledged to donate $150,000 to fund mass sterilization designed to save stray dogs from death, but former Bucharest mayor Traian Basescu, now president, abandoned the program after a month and ordered culling to continue.