What is Good for Zoos is Not Necessarily Good for Elephants

The title says it all. Good facts and good background on why Elephants do not belong in zoos and why zoos are nothing more than money making businesses only.

Article:

My opinion by Jim Kiser:

An enormous dilemma

What is good for zoos is not necessarily good for elephants

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/115297

Jim Kiser

ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Do elephants belong in zoos? Closer to home, do elephants belong in

Tucson's Reid Park Zoo? These questions are being raised again by the

death 18 days ago of Toni the elephant at Washington's National Zoo, and

by the Bronx Zoo's announcement last week that it will phase out its

elephant exhibit, after more than 100 years of displaying the popular

animals.

The issue has some urgency in Tucson, where the City Council is planning a

new $8.5 million elephant enclosure at Reid Park Zoo, but work has not yet

started on the expansion.

City staff members are drafting recommendations for the improvements and

for raising the money, at least part of which will come from donations.

They are expected to report to the council in April.

If elephants don't belong in zoos

and some zoo directors believe they do not, as does the Humane Society of

the United States

then there is still time for Tucson to reverse course and give up its

elephants before the money is raised and spent.

Her trunk for a crutch

Toni the elephant was 40 years old

about 20 years less than she could have been expected to live

when National Zoo officials decided Jan. 25 to euthanize her. She

suffered from severe arthritis, and despite being administered elephantine

doses of ibuprofen, she had lost hundreds of pounds and suffered from

shrinking muscles, the Washington Post reported.

Ironically, Toni's death came just one week after zoo officials had said

euthanasia wouldn't be necessary. But zookeepers changed their minds after

Toni began "trying to take the weight off her front legs by leaning on her

trunk, by rocking back on her hind legs and by sitting down," according to

the newspaper.

Toni's health problems were not unique. In the wild, elephants will roam

as many as 50 miles a day. In a zoo, the lack of opportunity to walk and

get sufficient exercise, plus being confined to areas with hard surfaces,

causes many elephants to suffer severe foot problems and arthritis. At

their most extreme, these problems lead to premature deaths.

Moreover, elephants are intelligent, social animals, which prefer to live

in matriarchal herds of at least a half-dozen. Consequently, zoo life,

without sufficient contact with several other elephants, can result in

stereotypical weaving, pacing and head bobbing

all signs of stress or boredom. In the Oakland Zoo, before making

significant changes in their elephant management, officials observed one

elephant engaging in such abnormal behaviors for five hours each day.

It was elephants' complex social patterns, in fact, that prompted the

Bronx Zoo's decision not to replace its three female elephants when they

die. Tuss, the zoo's matriarch elephant, died in 2002, and the three

remaining elephants still have not figured out a new social arrangement,

according to news stories.

Research also has shown that elephants have shorter lives in zoos than in

the wild. That contrasts sharply with the experience of most other

species, which live considerably longer in zoos because of the regular

source of food, medical care and lack of predators.

"Extremist" zoo critics

Because of such acute problems, some experts have concluded elephants

don't belong in zoos. Of course, this has ignited a debate that, at times,

is heated.

Leaders of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, as well as some

Tucson city officials, depict such critics as a small minority of

animal-rights "extremists." But that is neither accurate nor fair.

The "extremists" include such people as Ron Kagan, the director of the

Detroit Zoo, who last year voluntarily gave up his two elephants, Wanda

and Winky, out of concern for their welfare. He sent them to a sanctuary

near Sacramento, Calif. "By many indices, elephants just don't do very

well in captivity," Kagan told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Another "extremist" is David Hancocks, former director of the

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, who wrote in a Seattle Times commentary last

year that "the history of elephants in zoos is full of mental and physical

pain."

A third "extremist" is the Humane Society of the United States. "We don't

think that elephants can be kept humanely in zoos," Richard Farinato, a

Humane Society executive, bluntly told a Portland, Ore., weekly newspaper.

And now that list of "extremists" includes the Bronx Zoo, which eventually

will divert the $58,000 it spends annually on each elephant to conserving

elephants in the wild.

In its defense, the zoo association's strong reaction to the critics is

understandable: It is difficult to accept criticism when you are trying to

do your best.

Tucson's elephant plans

Yet there is an even more important issue underlying the debate. If the

public decides that it is not good for elephants to be kept in zoos, how

long will it be before the public decides that it is harmful also to keep

other animals in zoos?

When the City Council decided in June to expand the elephant exhibit at

Reid Park Zoo, it had just two choices: Either provide better facilities

for its two elephants, Connie and Shaba, in accordance with new guidelines

from the American Zoo Association, or send the elephants elsewhere.

Shaba is important nationally because she is reaching the end of her

breeding age, and she is unrelated to any other zoo elephant, which

prevents inbreeding problems. The zoo association has recommended she have

at least two babies.

That recommendation carries extra weight because elephants are an

endangered species in zoos, as well as in the wild. Elephants will not

exist in zoos in as little as 30 years if more are not bred, according to

documents provided to me by Fred Gray, director of Tucson Parks and

Recreation Department, which oversees the Reid Park Zoo.

Tucson's plans call for a 7-acre expansion of the zoo, with a new barn

that could house up to six elephants. If Shaba has a baby, that would give

Tucson three elephants. But breeding Shaba is not a sure thing. Over the

years, zoos have done poorly at breeding elephants.

Organized opposition to the council's decision has arisen from a group

that named itself "Save Tucson Elephants." Nikia Fico, a UA law student,

told me members of her group go to the zoo every week and have collected

more than 4,000 signatures to present to the City Council.

Fico's group wants the city to transfer the elephants to the Elephant

Sanctuary in Hohenwald, Tenn. The sanctuary occupies 2,700 acres and

specializes in providing a healthy environment for elephants to live the

remainder of their lives without the stresses and ailments that come from

being exhibited in zoos or worked in circuses.

Carol Buckley, the sanctuary's executive director, offered in June to

accept both elephants, at no cost to the city. She told me Feb. 1 that the

offer is still open.

However, city officials say they will not accept the offer but instead

will keep the elephants.

Popular people magnets

Elephants are hugely popular with the public, especially schoolchildren.

When the Nashville Zoo opened a new elephant exhibit last year, monthly

attendance shot up by 15,000. That means additional revenue and greater

levels of public support.

In Tucson, Connie and Shaba are the zoo's most popular attraction, parks

director Gray told the City Council in June.

Indeed, the public response to elephants in the Tucson zoo has "far

eclipsed any reaction to the garbage fees or anything else," Andrew

Greenhill, chief of staff to Mayor Bob Walkup, told me. Greenhill said the

mayor supports expanding the zoo, adding, "The community has made it very

clear they want the elephants here."

Moreover, were the city to give up its elephants, it would move them to

another zoo, not the sanctuary, both Gray and Assistant City Manager Liz

Miller told me. One reason: The American Zoo Association has threatened to

withdraw the accreditation of other zoos considering sending their

elephants to a sanctuary. The Detroit Zoo encountered months of conflict

with the association over its decision to send its elephants to a

sanctuary.

As part of its arguments, the city staff produced a document disputing

that sanctuaries are better for elephants. But Hancocks, former director

of the Desert Museum, disagrees. Here is what he wrote in his Seattle

Times commentary: "The quality of life at the Tennessee sanctuary, the

abundance of love the elephants receive, and the joy they experience are

beyond anything I have seen at any zoo. It seems an obvious choice."

It is relevant, too, that the Pittsburgh Zoo has joined with the

Conservation Fund in purchasing a 724-acre ranch for animal conservation

and breeding. Its first phase will focus on elephants. And at the National

Zoo, where Toni recently died, officials hope to replace the elephant

house at the main park location and to add a 100-acre or 200-acre elephant

facility at the zoo's research center.

Those efforts seem to acknowledge that any zoo planning to breed and

exhibit elephants needs to think in terms of hundreds of acres, not just a

few.

Indeed, the Elephant Sanctuary's Buckley told me that Tucson's planned

expansion would still be inadequate. "Seven acres are no better than 1

acre. No better for the elephant," she said.

The Elephant Sanctuary started with 100 acres but doubled its size when

officials noticed elephants were not recovering from health problems as

well as expected. Even so, with 200 acres to roam in, Buckley said, "The

elephants laughed at us. They said, 'For us, we're still living in a

closet.' " Consequently, officials expanded the sanctuary to 2,700 acres.

Move Shaba and Connie?

Should the council decide to move Shaba and Connie to another zoo or a

sanctuary, Tucson children and many parents surely would protest.

But it is time for Tucsonans to face the issue: It is unlikely that the

city can provide appropriately for its elephants, even with an expanded

exhibit, and even if the city were to spend millions more than the $8.5

million already tentatively planned.

I am convinced Tucson should give up its elephants, with their unique

needs, and focus on providing better facilities and care for its other zoo

animals.

I am convinced, too, that the City Council made its decision without

engaging the public in a needed discussion about the appropriateness of

keeping elephants

and about the degree of commitment that keeping elephants demands from a

community.

If that public discussion ever is held, Tucsonans likely will come to

recognize that what is good for zoos is not necessarily good for

elephants.

A key expression of a parent's love for a child is, at the appropriate

time, to let it go. The same may be true of a community's love for an

elephant.

Editorial columnist Jim Kiser appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Contact him at jkiser@azstarnet.com or 807-8012.

Elephants On The Edge Fight Back

Elephants On The Edge Fight Back

After years of trauma at the hands of humans, could Africa's elephants be
nursing a grudge?

18 February 2006

From New Scientist Print Edition.

Caroline Williams

TWO years ago the people of Bunyaruguru in western Uganda would think
nothing of cycling to the nearby township of Katwe to meet friends and do
business. Then one day a herd of elephants paid them a visit. They came
from the bush, knocked down huts and garden plots, then left with nothing
to show but a trail of destruction. Now elephants regularly block the road
to Katwe, and villagers are too afraid to cycle past.
Across Africa, elephants seem to be turning on their human neighbours in
ever increasing numbers. Although such attacks are nothing new, they have
always been seen as a side effect of elephants competing for food and
land, either as a result of population explosions or because people have
encroached on elephant territory. But that may not be the whole story.
"Elephant numbers have never been lower in Uganda. Food has never been so
abundant," says Eve Abe, who studied elephant aggression in Uganda at the
time of the Bunyaruguru attack in 2003 and now works as a wildlife and
tourism consultant based in London. "There is no reason for this to be
happening. In the 1960s elephant densities were very high and there were
few reports of aggression. Now the elephants are just so wild."
What has happened to everyone's favourite gentle giant? It may sound
far-fetched, but a growing number of scientists are lending their support
to the theory that elephants are taking revenge on humans for years of
abuse. Last year a group of eminent elephant researchers described an
"elephant breakdown" occurring all over Africa, with elephants suffering
serious psychological problems after witnessing the death of family
members or being orphaned by poaching or culls (Nature, vol 433, p 807).
Elephants are well known for being intelligent, sociable and affectionate.
Females and their young live in tight matriarchal groups, forging strong
social bonds that last a lifetime. Calves learn the ways of the world from
their mothers, aunts and cousins and, most importantly, the matriarch -
the most experienced female in the herd. Sadly, the days when elephants
were left to live in peace are long gone. Since the 1970s and 1980s, when
the ivory trade decimated wild elephant populations in Africa, poaching,
culls and translocation programmes have made their mark on generation
after generation.
Juvenile delinquents
In Uganda, poaching has slashed elephant numbers in the Queen Elizabeth
National Park, which borders Bunyaruguru, by 90 per cent over the past 30
years. Now only 400 animals remain, a third of them under 5 years old and
many of them orphans. Across the continent, many herds have lost their
matriarch and have had to make do with a succession of inexperienced
"teenage mothers" who have raised a generation of juvenile delinquents.
Meanwhile a lack of older bulls has led to gangs of hyperaggressive young
males with a penchant for violence towards each other and other species
(Nature, vol 408, p 425). In Pilanesburg National Park, South Africa, for
example, young bulls have been attacking rhinos since 1992, and in Addo
National Park, also in South Africa, 90 per cent of male elephants are
killed by another male - 15 times the "normal" figure.
Could it be that traumatised elephants have also grown up harbouring a
grudge against humans? Joyce Poole, research director at the Amboseli
Elephant Research Project in Kenya, was one of the authors of the elephant
breakdown paper. "They are certainly intelligent enough and have good
enough memories to take revenge," she says. Poole suspects the way the
authorities are dealing with the situation may be making it worse.
"Wildlife managers may feel that it is easier to just shoot so-called
'problem' elephants than face people's wrath. So an elephant is shot
without realising the possible consequences on the remaining family
members, and the very real possibility of stimulating a cycle of
violence."
Poole and her colleagues claim that many African elephants are suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) brought on by experiencing
stress at an early age. Experiments and observations of captive animals
suggest that stress experienced during their youth can lead to
neurological and behavioural changes that resemble PTSD in humans. "[This]
could explain a suite of behaviours that have been common in captivity but
sadly now are becoming part of wild elephant behaviour," says the paper's
lead author Gay Bradshaw from Oregon State University. This may well be
the first diagnosis of PTSD in a wild animal.
It is a challenging idea, but worth considering, according to Felicity de
Zulueta, a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital in London who
specialises in trauma therapy and grew up in Uganda with an orphaned
elephant as a pet. She points out that one cause of PTSD in humans is the
failure of a child to bond or "attach" properly with its primary carer.
Even if bonding does occur but is weak, or is later severed, children may
grow up with severe psychological problems including delinquency.
"Prematurely separating an elephant from the family tribe will have very
powerful effects in terms of the attachment system. One of these effects
would be aggression," she says. The damage is thought to occur because
bonding is vital for the healthy development of the corticolimbic region
of the brain's right hemisphere. If neurons there are not stimulated at an
early age they are lost, leaving infants unable to regulate their
emotions, vulnerable to the effects of stress and more likely to become
violent. "Elephants have a long childhood like us, so the effect may well
be similar," says de Zulueta.
Could this explain the seemingly unprovoked attack on the people of
Bunyaruguru? Abe believes it might. She compares the behaviour of Uganda's
delinquent elephants to that of young men from her own tribe, the Acholi
of northern Uganda, whom she studied for her PhD. Having witnessed
genocide in the 1970s during the Ugandan civil war, which selectively
removed the male elders from society, the children of the Acholi were left
to wander alone, traumatised and with no adult guidance. Many of these
children have grown into violent men. "This is a perfect example of family
destruction," says Abe. "Trauma persists over generations." She believes
that elephants are responding to stress in a similar way. "Either through
social learning or through neurobiology, elephants are changing over
decades of intensive and extensive stress and disturbance."
Still, it is a leap from traumatised elephants to elephants bent on
revenge - for many experts, a leap too far. "I'm sure disturbance of
elephant herds can lead to more aggressive behaviour, but as far as the
root causes of human/elephant conflicts in Africa today, I wouldn't rank
it as a top issue," says Leo Niskanen, programme manager of the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) African Elephant Specialist Group. "Generally
the main issues are things like elephant range being fragmented, corridors
being destroyed, more people settling near protected areas." Put simply,
elephants and humans just keep bumping into each other. And bumping into 5
tonnes of elephant - hyperaggressive or not - is always going to cause
problems.
Richard Lair, an Asian-elephant researcher at the National Elephant
Institute based in Thailand, agrees. The same story is being told in
India, where villagers, particularly in West Bengal, live in constant fear
of male elephants that the villagers claim attack the village for one
reason only - to kill humans. In Asia, at least, Lair puts the problems
down to too many humans and too little land, leading to competition for
resources and more encounters between elephants and humans. "I think it
comes down to encroachment," he says. "In wilderness areas where wild
elephants have no contact with human beings they are, by and large, fairly
tolerant. The more human beings they see, the less tolerant they become."
In Thailand, where papers carry regular reports of rogue animals, the
explanation is probably even more straightforward, according to Lair. When
the Thai government banned logging in the 1980s, large numbers of
elephants were made redundant. Some were sold across the border to Burma
and Laos where logging still takes place, but most now carry tourists into
the forest on treks, or work in cities where they are dressed up to entice
people to buy bananas and sugar cane to feed them. It's a lucrative
business and the lure of the tourist dollar has attracted less experienced
mahouts to sign up and have a go, often with disastrous consequences for
those who do not know how to deal with unpredictable animals. "It's now a
real issue," says Lair, "not just for the safety of the mahouts, and
thereby the public, but also for the welfare of the elephants."
The idea that elephants are suffering from PTSD and taking it out on
humans is undoubtedly controversial. Nevertheless, there is a growing
awareness that elephant psychology and their social structure must be
taken into account in future attempts to manage the animals in the wild.
With elephant numbers reaching carrying capacity in many of Africa's
national parks, Niskanen and his colleagues at the IUCN have been prompted
to come up with guidelines for translocations. They recommend that herds
be monitored long before they are moved, to ensure that the entire family
is taken. That won't be easy or cheap to implement, admits Niskanen,
especially since the measure is voluntary. "In many cases governments just
don't have the resources," he says. "In vast parts of Africa we have no
idea how many elephants there are, let alone understanding of the
intricacies of their family structures."
Even where governments do follow IUCN recommendations, elephants may still
be left traumatised, according to Bradshaw. She is particularly concerned
about the fate of elephants in the Kruger National Park, where the
population is more than double the park's carrying capacity. Passions are
running high over the South African government's plans to cull some of the
animals. No decision has yet been made, and the park's research manager
Ian Whyte is keen to point out that any cull would remove entire families,
and that leaving behind one or two family members would be unthinkable.
Bradshaw is not convinced. "It would be like taking out a district of
London and thinking the rest of the city will be fine," she says. "Do you
think they're not going to know and be affected by what has happened to
the herd next door?"
Talk of keeping elephant families united and happy may sound like a cruel
joke to anyone who has lost a loved one, had their home destroyed or crops
trampled. Like the people of Bunyaruguru, they probably just want the
elephants to go away. But as both human and elephant populations increase,
the two will have to learn to live together, and anything that can reduce
conflict must surely be embraced. Keeping elephant social groups intact
may be the best way to avoid making a bad situation worse, and to be sure
we don't end up with a monster of our own making.

Another Zoo Death - This Time a Giraffe and it’s Child Die in Fire – Brings to Question Again the Validity of Zoos

Not much to add to this one.

Article:

Zoo deaths fuel breeding debate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4708066.stm

by Jonathan Morris

BBC News South West

Like most zoos, Paignton's emphasis is now preservation of endangered species.

And the Rothschild giraffes Kizi and her baby which died at Paignton on Monday are dependent on conservation.

But some question zoos' conservation credentials, saying that money would be better spent supporting wild animals in their natural habitats.

Paignton changed its emphasis from being a showcase for people to gawp at animals to a conservation body in 1996.

The zoo's name and logo was changed to Paignton Zoo Environmental Park and the habitat theme was introduced.

Since then, the zoo, which has more than 2,000 animals spread over 80 acres, has won awards for its conservation work at the zoo and on projects abroad.

Giraffes

Father Paddy, left, with mother Kizi and their baby

Current work includes forest elephant conservation in Nigeria; antelope, rhino and cheetah research in Zimbabwe; and similar research and projects in Tanzania, Malawi, South Africa and Botswana.

The zoo itself is leading the way in conservation work relating to water voles, dormice, meadow thistle and wood ants.

The zoo says that for some species captive breeding is the only way to ensure their survival.

Zoo spokesman Philip Knowling told BBC News: "It is such an important job that we invest a lot of time and effort, care and attention in the work.

"In the single global zoo, we are working together to ensure the continuation of the species.

"Zoos are still places that people visit, but underneath there is a very strong conservation message."

He said that for many species, such as orang-utans and gorillas, zoos were their last refuge.

Natural habitats

"Orang-utans will be extinct in the wild in decades and they will only exist in zoos," he said.

That picture is challenged by the Born Free Foundation (BFF), which says that money spent by zoos would be better spent supporting endangered species in their natural habitats.

The foundation's CEO Will Travers told BBC News: "The question is what we as humans should be doing in species conservation and I do not think the zoo model is productive in dealing with these issues."

For instance, he said that the £50m planned for Bristol Zoo's expansion would be better directed at organisations like Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS).

"Their budget is $16m (£9.15m) a year and they have to cover 45,000 sq km," he said.

"That's 50 times more than the New Forest."

He said that four years ago the KWS and BFF took two Rothschild giraffes like Kizi to a new location.

"We have had five beautiful babies and none of them had to be hand-reared."

Spending by zoos on overseas conservation projects was "a drop in the ocean".

He said: "It is a tragedy for the giraffes at Paignton and I am sure that the keepers are very good people who will be as upset as anyone, but that should not prevent us looking at the bigger picture.

"Do we continue to put money into zoos that were created 200 years ago, or do we go down a different route that offers a real success because it protects animals in their habitats rather than in captivity?"

Two Elephants Explored their New Sanctuary Free of Chains

A great ending to a terrible story. Very surprised to see that the US govt. actually followed through.

“The elephants came to the sanctuary from circus supplier Hawthorn Corp.,

which settled U.S. charges it mistreated a dozen elephants by agreeing to

send them away.”

More on the sanctuary – the Elephant Sanctuary at Hohenwald, Tennessee - they are at can be found here: http://www.elephants.com/

A great place. Support them if you can.

Article:

Unchained elephants explore new sanctuary

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/

02/01/elephant.sanctuary.reut/index.html

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) -- Two elephants explored their new

sanctuary free of chains on Tuesday, the first of four pairs to arrive as

part of an ambitious relocation effort mounted for abused pachyderms,

organizers said.

Minnie and Lottie were the first of eight female Asian and African

elephants to make the 12-hour trip from northern Illinois inside a

custom-built truck trailer to their rural refuge, the Elephant Sanctuary

50 miles southwest of Nashville.

The elephants came to the sanctuary from circus supplier Hawthorn Corp.,

which settled U.S. charges it mistreated a dozen elephants by agreeing to

send them away.

Hawthorn has denied mistreating any animals. The elephants were chained at

Hawthorn and at various circuses when they weren't performing.

Some of the sanctuary newcomers will have to be quarantined for up to a

year because of exposure to tuberculosis, sanctuary founder Carol Buckley

said. All were deemed healthy enough to travel, though one elephant died

last month.

One of the freshly unloaded elephants, which has spent much of its life

chained or confined, was startled when a sapling it grabbed with its trunk

snapped back.

The eight newcomers will eventually join 11 other rescued elephants --

including two originally from Hawthorn -- who live on the sanctuary's

secluded 2,700 acres near the town of Hohenwald.

Buckley, who founded the preserve a decade ago after adopting a baby

elephant torn from its mother, said the relocated elephants will enjoy "a

glorious reunion ... as a family to live out their lives in freedom."

"We had to build a new barn and new fencing and be ready to house and feed

guests who eat an awful lot and are coming to stay," Buckley said.

The sanctuary raised $3 million for a new barn for the elephants and

estimates it needs $2 million a year to look after the eight.

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/02/01/elephant.sanctuary.reut/index.html

Fur Still Very Big in Fashion. Vain Narcissists like American Vogue's editor, Anna Wintour Can’t Get Enough of the Remnants of Dead Animals

Good article on the history of protest against fur in fashion and on some current pretentious fashion egomaniacs who continue to use animal fur. “Because you know darling, there’s nothing like the feel of the skin of an abused, slaughtered animal. Kiss kiss.” (Imitation of pretentious fashion egomaniac).

Animal rights: When fur flies on the catwalk

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article345698.ece

The designer Julien Macdonald was pelted with flour at London Fashion Week yesterday by protesters. Oliver Duff and Jonathan Brown report on some fashionable furors

Published: 16 February 2006

No darling of the fashion world likes to be seen wearing the same outfit twice. So the designer Julien Macdonald may keep a low public profile for the rest of London Fashion Week after being pelted with flour by anti-fur protesters following his Covent Garden show on the opening night.

Macdonald, 32, was coated from head to toe as he posed for pictures with the hotel heiress Paris Hilton outside the Cuckoo Club in Mayfair, on their way into the after-show party. The white-faced Welshman laughed off the incident, although Hilton, who escaped with a sprinkling on her shoulder, looked less impressed as she was dusted off.

Members of Peta ­ People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ­ are promising further attacks on those leading lights of the industry who continue to support the promotion of lavish pelts on the catwalk.

Number one on their hit list is American Vogue's editor, Anna Wintour, who took her seat in the front row of Paul Smith's show yesterday morning wearing her trademark fur coat and dark glasses. Her presence ­ after an absence of four years ­ has stirred great excitement on the London scene, but protesters are salivating at the thought of scoring a direct hit against a long-standing enemy of the animal rights movement.

Wintour has been repeatedly targeted in the US for refusing to ban fur from the pages of her magazine. Protesters have stuffed cream pies in her face, thrown paint over her, jumped naked into a bath of fake blood outside her offices and posted her a package of maggot-infested animal guts.

In one notorious incident 10 years ago, an activist approached her in a New York restaurant and threw a dead racoon in her soup, reportedly shouting: " This is for the animals, fur hag." Wintour claims to have coolly ordered a waiter to remove the animal and continued with her meal.

Macdonald too has been targeted before ­ hence, perhaps, the calm resignation. "They had just got out of their car and were posing for the cameras," said an onlooker. "All of a sudden, a woman approached from behind the cameras and emptied the flour bomb over them. Julien was covered, as was the doorman standing next to him. They were both bundled back into the car and driven around the block."

The female protester was held by door staff while they called police, but she escaped and ran down the street just as sirens came into earshot.

Yvonne Taylor, a spokeswoman for Peta, said there was "nothing fashionable about the torture and death of animals killed for fur". Referring to the fur-clad models in his show, she added: "Julien Macdonald may have been able to ignore images of bloody skinned animals gasping for breath in the past, but hopefully a dash of flour will help him forsake fur once and for all." A spokesman for Macdonald said the Merthyr Tydfil-born designer did not wish to comment.

A spokeswoman for the British Fashion Council said that the council did not interfere with the aesthetic of any designer.

She defended the organisers' arrangements: "We always have a very strong security system and this season was no different. Security at the Julien Macdonald show was excellent because the protesters did not get into the show."

Peta targeted Macdonald in February 2003, storming the catwalk during his winter collection at the London Fashion Show. At the time, he justified the use of fur, saying it "was inspired by sex and glamour. It is for the women who... aren't afraid to look sexy." He shrugged off the demonstration, saying it was "a bit of a waste of their time" because his fur jackets and coats were manufactured from rabbit pelts and by-products of the meat industry.

The Protests

* Peta anti-fur protesters carrying "Fur is dead" placards leap on to the catwalk at Julien Macdonald's spring-summer collection in London in September last year. One demonstrator, pictured, held aloft a mis-spelt banner as the designer took his final bow

* Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen, in stockings and suspenders during the Victoria's Secrets show in New York in 2002, is targeted by Peta for her contract with the American fur company Blackglama

* Peta protesters wearing masks of American Vogue editor, Anna Wintour, protest outside the New York office of the "Fur Witch" in October. Twice last year she received the tofu cream pie treatment

* Calvin Klein's black suit is plastered with a tofu cream pie as he arrives at the Council of Fashion Designers of America awards ceremony in New York in June 2001

* An unpleasant moment for a Peta protester on the catwalk of designer Jean-Paul Gaultier's show in March 2003. The designer's assistant threw a fur blanket over the activist

* The Pretenders' lead singer, Chrissie Hynde, is arrested in March 2000 for protesting in the window of a Gap clothing store in New York, against what she claimed was the company's use of "illegally and cruelly" slaughtered cows in India

* The Italian fashion giant Prada was in the firing line hours before its autumn-winter catwalk show in Milan last year when Peta protesters in red paint caused havoc in their upmarket store in the northern city

* Shoppers at the Galeries Lafayette in Paris survey semi-naked protesters from Peta. The sign reads: "We'd rather be dead than wear fur"

Funds to Animal Rights Groups Continue to Grow. Statistics Included

Good article that provides statistics from 2004 Form 990 returns for Animal Rights – Related Groups. In general, funds for these groups continue to grow.

I don’t vouch fully for the numbers provided. As they mentioned, the 40 percent is a general or aggregate number. Yet, if they used Form 990s, then the individual figures are correct.

Animal rights groups’ funds continue to grow

http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?

pgID=675&ed_id=3530

By Drovers news source (Tuesday, February 14, 2006)

Donations to animal rights groups increased 40 percent from 2003 to 2004 (the most current snapshot available.) “Animal People,” a publication that bills itself as ''News for people who care about animals,'' reported the results based on Internal Revenue Service Form 990, which the groups are required to file.

Animal People's list includes mainstream animal protection groups like the African Wildlife Foundation and Conservation International, which are not considered in the Animal Agriculture Alliance's calculations, to more radical animal rights groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary and the extremely radical Compassion Over Killing. Please note that the most radical groups like Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Hugs for Puppies and Animal Defense League did not file tax documents, yet were responsible for many visible attacks on law-abiding businesses, their owners and employees.

Here’s a quick look:

• The Humane Society of the United States revenues equaled $74 million, up 3 percent.
• The Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the next largest group), grew revenues to $48.2 million, an 11 percent jump.
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals reported a 20 percent gain or $28.1 million in revenue.
• PETA-affiliated Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the PCRM Foundation combined for $16 million, up from $12 million in 2003.

The combined budgets of animal rights organizations, which focus at least part of their activities against animal agriculture, were $207 million in 2003 and were well more than $290 million in 2004. The budgets for some of the better-known animal rights organizations are listed below.

Given/Earned	2004 ($ millions)	2003 ($ millions)	Change
Humane Society of the United States/Fund for Animals	74.0	71.6	3%
Massachusetts SPCA	48.2	43.6	11%
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)	28.1	23.5	20%
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)	10.2	9.0	13%
PCRM Foundation	5.8	4.0	45%
Farm Sanctuary	4.2	3.4	24%

The 2004 federal forms on which Animal People's report was based were not available for the Doris Day Animal League or Viva!UK. The same federal forms have not been available for 2003 or 2004 for the PETA Foundation, Animal Rights International, Viva!USA or Global Resource Action Committee for the Environment, creator of The Meatrix.

Animal Agriculture Alliance points out that the groups’ combined efforts against animal agriculture spent more than $290 million in 2004.

Truth of the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Testing in General: Animal’s Rights are Not Protected Via Act: Lab Animals Have No Legal Protections

A very good writing by a law student at Stanford. He points out the painful truth that: “…these regulations do not restrict the actual experiments that a researcher may conduct. If a researcher found scientific merit in torturing infant monkeys, testing pain thresholds in cats or kicking dogs to test their reactions to abuse, no law would prohibit such actions. The Animal Welfare Act does not permit the government to regulate “the performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such a research facility.” Even the regulations that require the provision of anesthesia or the search for alternatives can be subverted by a mere assertion of “scientific necessity,” according to this same Act.”

In essence, the disinformation put forth by those related to animal testing and experimentation is fallacious. I guess it takes a Stanford student to point this basic structure of logic out. Just because this one act exists does not mean it is all encompassing and will protect the unfortunate subjects from any twisted experiments that some wacko can dream up. In fact, they can do pretty much any thing they want to them and be covered by the law.

Seems strange, in that if you or I did what the people engaging in animal testing did to their victims, we’d be locked up for animal abuse and monitored by a professional for mental illness. Instead though, animal testing and vivisection is illogically exempted from any type of animal cruelty laws. Experiments can do anything they want and cover it up under the guise of science. Those with certain credentials like a M.D. or a PhD then have a ticket to exercise their wildest and cruelest actions.

Article:

Animal rights are not protected

http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=

ontent&id=19397&repository=0001_article#

By Matthew Liebman

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

In an article in yesterday’s paper, “Students Protest for Animals,” Ruthann Richter claimed that animals in laboratories are covered by extensive legal protections, ensuring a happy and comfortable life for animal subjects. These regulations, however, fail to prevent basic suffering.

First, these regulations do not restrict the actual experiments that a researcher may conduct. If a researcher found scientific merit in torturing infant monkeys, testing pain thresholds in cats or kicking dogs to test their reactions to abuse, no law would prohibit such actions. The Animal Welfare Act does not permit the government to regulate “the performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such a research facility.” Even the regulations that require the provision of anesthesia or the search for alternatives can be subverted by a mere assertion of “scientific necessity,” according to this same Act.

Second, the Act excludes birds, rats and mice from its definition of “animal,” thereby exempting them from even the minimal protections that the act provides. Because these animals make up 95 percent of the animals used in experimentation, the vast majority of tests conducted on laboratory animals are unregulated. Stanford, for example, uses tens of thousands of rats and mice, as well as owls. The University also refuses to disclose the number of animals it uses at the Research Animal Facility.

Third, the regulations that do exist are drastically under-enforced. Federal funding granted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act is minimal. Even when regulatory and accreditation agencies, such as the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), visit laboratories to inspect animal welfare, the labs are notified in advance of the impending visit — essentially giving them a chance to hide any violations.

Fourth, Stanford has a history of noncompliance with animal welfare standards. When the campus laboratories were closely watched in the late 1980s through mid 1990s, animal rights advocates and even some regulators found violations.

Finally, even when animals are given care that complies with the Animal Welfare Act, they still experience significant stress. Laboratories only provide sterile surroundings, not natural environments. These animals have evolved over millions of years to live in jungles, deserts and brush, not the cool sterility of a laboratory. Showing movies to primates, as Richter mentions, is a far cry from the rich needs of an intelligent species. As emeritus Stanford librarian Lise Giraud noted in a news release in 1992: “Whether it’s a clean prison or a dirty prison, it’s still a prison.”

Matthew Liebman is a third year law student and a member of Student Animal Legal Defense Fund as well as Animal Rights on the Farm. He can be reached at mliebman@stanford.edu.

People who Live Near the US's Three Horse Slaughter Plants File Lawsuit to Prevent the USDA From Breaking the Law and Allowing Horse Slaughter

I’m so glad to see groups stepping up to this. As I wrote about this issue before, the USDA is breaking the law and allowing foreign companies to slaughter horses via a loophole. You can read more about this here:

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/02/

animal-haters-agree-usda-will-break.html

We’ll see what will happen. It will definitely take citizen action and not the action of those so-called representatives.

Animal Rights Coalitions Sue to Stop Horse Slaughter

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4502743

Feb 14, 2006, 05:13 PM

A coalition of animal rights groups and people who live near the nation's three horse slaughter plants have filed a lawsuit to prevent the Agriculture Department from providing horse meat inspections for a fee.

The groups allege that USDA's plans to provide the inspections next month violates a law passed as part of the 2006 agriculture spending bill signed by President Bush.

In that legislation, Congress cut funding for salaries and expenses of horse meat inspectors.

The plants have contended the law will cost jobs and economic benefits. The plants slaughter horses for the meat, which is consumed in Europe and Asia and used in some zoos.

Two of the plants are in Texas and one is in Illinois.

The House and Senate voted overwhelmingly last year for the provision cutting off money for the horse meat inspectors. The measure was crafted by its sponsors as a way to end horse slaughter, after other efforts to pass outright bans had failed in previous years.

Coretta Scott King not Only Fought for Human Rights, She Also Believed in and Fought for Animal Rights

Truly an amazing women. I had no idea she was a vegan. Much respect to her and this world will be much worse off with her not here. Much respect!

Article:

King's belief in animal rights

http://www.rutlandherald.com/

apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/

20060214/NEWS/602140311/1037

February 14, 2006

Last week, thousands of mourners waited for hours in freezing rain at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church and the state capitol rotunda to pay their respects to the "first lady of the civil rights movement," Coretta Scott King, who died on Jan. 30. President Bush and former President Clinton led the list of dignitaries at memorial services.

Coretta Scott King was much more than a devoted wife and partner of the celebrated civil rights leader. She traveled throughout the globe on behalf of peace and nonviolence, racial and economic justice, minority rights, religious freedom, the poor and homeless, educational opportunities, nuclear disarmament, and ecological sanity. She helped found, dozens of organizations advocating social justice, received honorary doctorates from over 60 colleges and universities, and authored three books and a nationally syndicated column.

Coretta Scott King was also a vegan, who eschewed all products of animal suffering, including meat, dairy, eggs, leather, and cosmetics containing animal ingredients or tested on animals. Her strong belief in peace and nonviolence extended to the violence perpetrated against billions of innocent, sentient animals in America's factory farms and slaughterhouses. Her passion for justice extended to the most downtrodden living beings on the planet — the animals bred, abused, and killed for food, fur, research, and entertainment.

Coretta Scott King truly practiced what she preached. And for that, I salute her.

ROB SCHNEIDER

Rutland

European Union Lawmakers on Tuesday Called for Chickens Raised for Meat Production to be Kept in Better Conditions

This could set a standard for the US. We’ll see what will happen. I’d say at the very least these could easily be implemented. Here’s a quick synopsis of what they’re asking for. Not much really:

Sufficient ventilation, regular feeding times, permanent access to water, minimal noise, dry litter, twice daily inspections, birds to be housed in less crowded conditions and urged the EU member states to ban practices such as beak trimming and castration of male chickens.

EU Wants Better Life for Chickens

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/

ap_on_re_eu/eu_chicken_farms

European Union lawmakers on Tuesday called for chickens raised for meat production to be kept in better conditions and asked the EU executive to standardize penalties for poultry farmers who do not comply with the rules.

The European Parliament said sufficient ventilation, regular feeding times, permanent access to water, minimal noise, dry litter and twice daily inspections should be provided at all chicken farms. It also called for birds to be housed in less crowded conditions and urged the EU member states to ban practices such as beak trimming and castration of male chickens.

National authorities should carry out unannounced spot checks to enforce the rules, the Parliament said.

"A majority of birds are raised in large insulated barns and exposed to near permanent artificial light to encourage constant eating. Barren environment and high stocking density also grossly restrict the bird's exploratory behavior," said the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, a Brussels-based animal welfare group. "Minimum standards for broiler chickens are desperately required. Without minimum standards, extensive and unnecessary suffering takes place."

Group in Israel Calls for Lawsuit Against Distributor of Diamond Pet Foods, Nutra Nuggets Deadly Dog Food

This is related to the Diamond Pet Foods, Nutra Nuggets's poisoning issue. – I wrote about it here:

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

toxic-pet-food-recall-dog-or-cat-food_

11.html

The lawsuit is against CTS, the Israeli distributor of Nutra Nuggets pet food. This is following the deaths of at least six dogs.

Pets suspected of having eaten the tainted food, and that show signs of illness, including sluggishness, reluctance to eat, or yellowish eyes, should be taken to a veterinarian immediately.

For more information call 1-700-700-192 or visit www.cts.co.il.

Article:

Animal rights group calls for lawsuit against distributor of deadly dog food

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/

Satellite?cid=1139395389555&

pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

AARON WENNER, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 11, 2006

Following the deaths of at least six dogs after consuming tainted dog food, representatives of the animal rights group Let the Animals Live are calling for a lawsuit against CTS, the Israeli distributor of Nutra Nuggets pet food.

The group is accusing CTS of failing to effectively publicize product recalls. 18-kg. bags marketed under the name Nutra Nuggets Performance Green and carrying an expiration date of April 11, 2007 were recalled by CTS in January, following concerns in the US that they were linked to a series of canine deaths.

In addition to the six dogs that have died in Israel so far, 19 more have been hospitalized, including eight used by the army, according to Dafna Talmon, a spokesperson for Let the Animals Live.

Amir Rosenberg, a lawyer for Let the Animals Live, said that manufacturer negligence would form the basic premise of the lawsuit. He added that investigations for the case were still underway, and a defendant had yet to be named.

CTS has pledged to pay for the hospitalization and treatment of the affected dogs, adding that it has purchased blood transfusions to aid the dogs' recovery.

"We are working in every possible way to minimize the serious damage to dogs that came into contact with the contaminated batch," said CTS spokeswoman Mily Harari in a statement.

Harari said that within 24 hours of the product recall, which was made public on January 1, all contaminated packages still on the market had been collected and removed from circulation. Also, as public notification about the recall, which directed consumers to a 24-hour information hotline, had been placed on the Ynet Internet news site.

Mark Schell, assistant general manager of Diamond Pet Foods, Nutra Nuggets's American manufacturer, was unaware of the Israeli lawsuit, but said that his company's response was similar to Israel's. Diamond Pet Foods has set up a call center staffed by veterinarians to take customer information and forward it to insurance agencies and consumer veterinarians. He would not comment on whether or not Diamond was currently the subject of any lawsuit.

Aflotoxin, the ingredient responsible for poisoning the animals, is a byproduct of fungi found on corn and other crops that have been exposed to high temperatures and drought. Diamond Pet Foods had issued a voluntary product recall in December 2005 on its Maintenance Dog and Premium Adult Dog line of pet foods, once it was discovered that dogs were dying from acute liver failure after eating the products.

The cause of the poisoning was traced to a factory in South Carolina that had inadvertently introduced aflotoxin into its production line. The factory has since been recertified for export by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Pets suspected of having eaten the tainted food, and that show signs of illness, including sluggishness, reluctance to eat, or yellowish eyes, should be taken to a veterinarian immediately.

For more information call 1-700-700-192 or visit www.cts.co.il.

Big Business Governor Frank Murkowski of Alaska is Very Excited that Hundreds of Wolves will be Killed: Group Renews Call for Alaska Tourism Boycott

Listen to this quote by the industry pimp governor of Alaska Frank Murkowski -

“..another victory in court against outside interest groups.”

This is absolutely hilarious. There is no bigger supporter of outside interest groups than Murkowski. I mean, he is an interest group. I guess corporate interests don’t fall under his definition.

Animal rights group renews call for Alaska tourism boycott

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/

nationworld/2002803403_webwolves13.html

By Mary Pemberton

The Associated Press

ANCHORAGE — An animal-rights group is renewing its call for tourists to boycott Alaska after legal challenges failed to end a program aimed at killing hundreds of wolves this winter.

The move comes after the Alaska Supreme Court on Friday denied a request by Friends of Animals to halt the program. The judges also refused to review the case. The court did not provide an explanation.

"As far as a tourism boycott which I had called off, it will be organized again," Priscilla Feral, president of the Darien, Conn.-based group, said today. "As much as we are floored to get the news, we are determined to go ahead and keep working."

Over the past two years, Friends of Animals helped stage hundreds of demonstrations called howl-ins in cities across the country to protest Alaska's predator-control program, intended to allow moose and caribou to increase in numbers. Some activists dressed in wolf outfits at the gatherings, and some howled in imitation of wolves to protest the hunts.

Alaska tourism officials say the howl-ins have had little, if any, effect on the state's $2 billion-a-year tourism industry.

Friends of Animals, joined by seven Alaska plaintiffs, also has been leading the court fight against the predator control program since 2003. The group last month celebrated a short-lived victory when Superior Court Judge Sharon Gleason found that the program to boost moose and caribou numbers was illegal because of administrative defects in the way the game board enacted it.

The game board went into emergency session to redraft the regulations and quickly reinstated the program, reissuing more than 100 permits to pilot and gunner teams, saying it was critical the program move forward while conditions are favorable for tracking and killing wolves. Gleason ruled the subsequent effort conformed with regulations and state law.

Gov. Frank Murkowski said the Supreme Court ruling was a victory for Alaskans.

"Alaskans, who rely upon moose and caribou to feed their families, have scored yet another victory in court against outside interest groups," Murkowski said in a statement.

Friends of Animals began holding howl-ins in November 2003, soon after the program was initiated in the Interior town of McGrath. Since then, the wolf-control program has spread to four more areas of the state where moose and caribou numbers are low. About 400 wolves have been killed so far, about half the number planned for this winter.

The Friends of Animals campaign was successful in the 1990s in persuading then-Gov. Wally Hickel to cancel a similar program, Feral said. It has not had that success with Murkowski. Between November 2003 and April 2005, Friends of Animals held more than 230 howl-ins.

"When Murkowski sailed into office, everything went to hell," Feral said.

However, the latest Supreme Court ruling has people re-energized, she said. Friends of Animals has already heard from sympathizers in New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut willing to help restart the howl-ins.

Friends of Animals also hopes to make lethal wolf control a gubernatorial campaign issue in the November election, Feral said. Murkowski, a first-term Republican, has not yet said whether he will run for re-election.

The group also plans to protest at the game board's next meeting in Fairbanks next month, where it will consider making the revised wolf control regulations permanent.

State biologists estimate that Alaska has 7,000 to 11,000 wolves.

In Sanford, Florida, Elephant Kept in Chains and Abused at Flea Market

An elephant at a flea market? Come on. This simply cannot work. Very unnatural. Chained down and prodded with a bull hook. What a terrible existence.

Animal Rights Protestors Upset Over Elephant At Flea Market

http://www.wftv.com/news/7001908/detail.html

SANFORD, Fla. -- Animal rights protestors want shoppers to stay away from the large flea market in Sanford. The protestors are upset over the use of an elephant to perform and give rides to children.

The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida wants Flea World to stop using Dondi as an act. They said the elephant spends most of her time in chains and is badly treated.

"All of the elephant handlers, just like Dondi's handlers, have what's called a bull hook. It's got a very sharp point at the end of stick used to poke, jab, pull Dondi around and maker her perform things she does inside," explained Bryan Wilson, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida.

The protestors also said Dondi is more likely to go on a rampage, because she is held in a small contained area.

Bob Barker from "The Price is Right" Tells of Horrible Conditions for Elephants in Los Angeles Zoo: Asks City Council to Close Zoo's Elephant Exhibit

Even at 82 Bob Barker is still going strong. Guess it’s him leading a healthy life. Here are some quotes from the article below which brings attention to what Mr. Barker sees as concerns:

“Barker said that Ruby is under emotional stress and has started to sway back and forth for hours at a time.

"The only place you see that is at zoos and circuses. When they are under such emotional stress they begin to sway," Barker said.”

Barker goes to bat for elephants

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/

pbcs.dll/section?Category=CINCI

The director of the Los Angeles Zoo on Saturday disputed game show host Bob Barker's comments about the condition of the zoo's three elephants.

Barker on Friday pleaded with the City Council to close the zoo's elephant exhibit, saying the pachyderms lived in misery and that two of the three elephants were ill.

"His information was wrong," said John Lewis, the zoo's director.

"He was making statements that were just factually untrue."

Two of the zoo's elephants, Billy and Ruby, are healthy physically and mentally, Lewis said. Gita has been recovering from October surgery for a foot injury and has been behaving normally, he said.

Barker, the 82-year-old host of "The Price is Right" and a longtime animal rights activist, stood by his remarks Saturday. Barker said that Ruby is under emotional stress and has started to sway back and forth for hours at a time.

"The only place you see that is at zoos and circuses. When they are under such emotional stress they begin to sway," Barker said.

Barker also denounced the zoo's plans to build a 2-acre, $19 million elephant exhibit.

Vice President Dick Cheney Shoots His Millionaire Buddy While Slaughtering Quail: Good Old Boy Hunting Trip Gone Wrong.

This one has so many angles I don’t know where to start. The obvious reaction is surprise. I mean come on, they’d have to not be exercising safety measures for this to happen.

It’s heartening to know that a man (yes, he is mortal vs. what most think) that can make such a huge mistake is running the country.

It seems too that they were simply driving and looking for things to shoot. This doesn’t come off to me as a typical hunting trip. Usually people walk. I guess though that this is the way millionaire good old boys do it. Just talk favors in a car and then jump out and shoot when the spotter boy sees birds. More business than anything I guess.

Article:

Cheney shoots hunter by accident

Texas lawyer hit as vice president fires at a quail

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

2006/02/13/MNG16H7I511.DTL&hw=Cheney+

shoots+hunter+by+accident&sn=001&sc=1000

Anne E. Kornblut, New York Times

Monday, February 13, 2006

Washington -- Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a prominent Austin lawyer on Saturday while the two men were quail hunting in south Texas, firing a shotgun at the man while trying to aim for a bird, a member of the hunting party said.

Cheney, a practiced hunter, shot the lawyer, Harry Whittington, on an outing at the Armstrong Ranch. Whittington, 78, was taken by helicopter to Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital where he was listed in stable condition on Sunday, according to Michele Trevino, a hospital spokeswoman.

"He is stable and doing well. It was almost like he was spending time with me in my living room," hospital administrator Peter Banko, who visited Whittington, told the Associated Press. Banko said Whittington was in the intensive care unit because his condition warranted it, but he didn't elaborate.

White House officials did not release details of the incident. But Katharine Armstrong, who was with the hunting party at the time of the shooting, said Cheney, 65, fired his shotgun without realizing that Whittington had approached him, hitting him on his right side, on his cheek, neck and chest. The incident was first reported on the Web site of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times on Sunday.

"It was accidental, a hunting accident," Ramon Salinas III, Kenedy County sheriff, said from his office in Sarita, Texas, adding that the Secret Service notified him Saturday of the incident. "They did what they had to according to law."

The Armstrong Ranch is a familiar hunting venue for Republican politicians, including Cheney, who sometimes hunts there several times a year. Whittington is a friend of the Armstrong family's and a frequent visitor to the 50,000-acre ranch, one of the largest private properties in Texas.

Whittington is a former member of the Texas Board of Corrections, which runs the state's prisons, and he once led the Texas Public Finance Authority Board. In 1999, George W. Bush, then governor of Texas, named Whittington to head the Texas Funeral Service Commission, which licenses and regulates funeral directors and embalmers in the state. Whittington still serves in the position.

White House officials, who did not make public the shooting incident for 24 hours, did not say how Whittington and Cheney were acquainted, although both have long-standing ties to the Armstrong family. Whittington sent word through a hospital official that he would have no comment on the incident out of respect for Cheney, according to the Associated Press.

Cheney often goes hunting with other political figures. Two years ago he went duck hunting with Justice Antonin Scalia in Louisiana, a trip that drew criticism because the Supreme Court had just agreed to hear a case involving Cheney's energy task force.

Anne Armstrong, the matriarch of the family that owns the ranch, is a Republican Party stalwart who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations and also as ambassador to Great Britain. When her husband, Tobin Armstrong, died in October, Cheney and James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, spoke at the funeral.

The ranch, which features Spanish-style cottages and usually has a full working staff, was settled in 1882 by a Texas Ranger named John Armstrong III, who passed the land on to the family. It sits near the King Ranch, the legendary property settled by the Kleberg family, also in South Texas.

According to Katharine Armstrong, the daughter of Anne Armstrong who was with the hunting party at the time of the incident, Whittington broke away from a line of three hunters, including Cheney, and failed to announce that he was returning to the group. Hearing a covey of birds, Cheney shot at one, not realizing that it was Whittington who had startled the quail and that he was in the line of fire.

"This all happened pretty quickly," Armstrong said in a telephone interview from her ranch. Whittington, she said, "did not announce -- which would be protocol -- 'Hey, it's me, I'm coming up.'

"He didn't do what he was supposed to do," she said, referring to Whittington. "So when a bird flushed and the vice president swung in to shoot it, Harry was where the bird was."

Whittington was "sprayed -- peppered, is what we call it -- on his right side, on part of his face, neck, shoulder and rib cage," she said.

"A shotgun sprays a bunch of little bitty pellets, it's not a bullet involved," Armstrong said. She said she believed Cheney was shooting a 28-gauge shotgun, and that guests typically bring their own firearms.

Armstrong said the shotgun pellets "broke the skin" and that the blast "knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open. It didn't get in his eyes or anything like that."

Whittington was about 30 feet away from the vice president when the shooting occurred, Armstrong said. Altogether, there were five people in the group. Armstrong declined to identify the other hunters. Each of the hunters was wearing a bright orange vest at the time, Armstrong said.

After the accident, Cheney's medical attendants helped Whittington, treating his wounds and covering him in blankets so he would not go into shock, Armstrong said. He did not lose consciousness. She described Cheney's immediate response to the shooting as very appropriate.

"He immediately went to Harry's side and was right there and made sure his detail was totally focused on him," she said. "Of course he's very concerned. He's been checking in almost on a minute-by-minute basis."

Armstrong told the Associated Press that the emergency personnel traveling with Cheney tended to Whittington before an ambulance -- routinely on call because of the vice president's presence -- took him to a hospital in Kingsville. From there, Whittington was flown by helicopter to Corpus Christi about 40 miles away.

Afterward, she said, her brother-in-law and another guest went to the hospital to check on Whittington. The rest of the party had dinner, and Cheney, who had flown into Texas on Friday night, departed on Sunday.

"Whittington is fine," Armstrong said. "He's sitting up in bed, yakking and cracking jokes.

"This is something that happens from time to time. You know, I've been peppered pretty well myself."

A White House official, refusing to speak for attribution, said that no announcement about the shooting was made initially because the focus was on getting Whittington medical attention. The news was then delivered by Armstrong to her local newspaper. The White House only began confirming the incident on Sunday, a day after it occurred.

Campaign finance records show that Whittington contributed $2,000 -- the maximum personal amount allowed -- to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

"The vice president visited with Harry Whittington at the hospital today and was pleased to see that he's doing fine and in good spirits," Lea Anne McBride, the vice president's spokeswoman, said Sunday.

Asked why the vice president's office had made no announcement about the incident, McBride said, "We deferred to the Armstrongs regarding what had taken place at their ranch."

Cheney was legally hunting with a license he purchased in November, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spokesman Steve Lightfoot told the Associated Press.

The International Hunter Education Association, which represents safety coordinators for fish and wildlife agencies and tracks incident reports by state, said on its Web site that hunting accidents in the United States have declined about 30 percent over the past decade. In 2002, the most recent year data was available, 89 fatal and 761 non-fatal incidents were reported. In 26 of the cases, including one fatality, the intended target was quail.

Animal rights advocates were critical of Cheney Sunday. "We'd advise him to pursue a less violent form of relaxation and get on with the important business of leading the country," Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a statement.

The Associated Press and the Washington Post contributed to this report.

Even with Falling Consumer Demand, the Japanese Still Love to Kill and Eat Endangered Whales

Here are a few quotes from the story below. Sad to see that they’re not getting the picture that many consumers in Japan know that killing whales in unacceptable. Yet, the continue to do so at huge rates.

"But the country has been caught in a dilemma: by rapidly expanding its much-criticised whaling programme, Japan now kills far more of the mammals than its consumers care to eat. The result is an unprecedented glut. Prices are plunging, inventories are full and promoters are scrambling to find new ways to get Japanese to eat whale.

However, the surplus hasn't stopped the harpoon guns. Japan plans to kill - under a "research programme" - some 1,070 minke whales in 2006, about 400 more than last year and more than double the number it hunted a decade ago. It will also hunt ten fin whales and a total of 160 Bryde's, sei and sperm whales, a fisheries official said."

You can find more on the Japanese and killing whales here:

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

-kill-more-whales-photos-here.html

Article:

Are Japanese losing the taste for whale?

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?

tid=226&id=210702006

HIROKO TABUCHI IN TOKYO

JAPAN has enticed children with whale burger school lunches, sung the praises of whale meat in colourful pamphlets and declared whale hunting "a national heritage".

But the country has been caught in a dilemma: by rapidly expanding its much-criticised whaling programme, Japan now kills far more of the mammals than its consumers care to eat. The result is an unprecedented glut. Prices are plunging, inventories are full and promoters are scrambling to find new ways to get Japanese to eat whale.

"Prospects don't look good at the moment," said Kunitada Ito, a merchant at Tokyo's Tsukiji fish market. His company, Toshoku, has slashed whale meat prices by 25 per cent, but its freezers are still stacked.

Toshoku's plight is not unique. Some 1,000 tonnes of the meat hit the market in Japan last year, a 65 per cent increase from 1995. But slow demand means stockpiles have almost doubled in five years to 2,750 tons in 2004. In the same five-year period, the average price of whale plunged almost 30 per cent, to 2,560 yen (£12.40) a kilogramme in 2004.

However, the surplus hasn't stopped the harpoon guns. Japan plans to kill - under a "research programme" - some 1,070 minke whales in 2006, about 400 more than last year and more than double the number it hunted a decade ago. It will also hunt ten fin whales and a total of 160 Bryde's, sei and sperm whales, a fisheries official said.

The International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in 1986 but approved limited hunts for research purposes a year later. Opponents such as New Zealand and Australia have called Japan's hunts merely a way for it to dodge the ban. Japan, however, says its programme is needed to establish reliable information on whale populations and habits - data it says can be gleaned only by killing the animals.

The Tokyo government, which distributes the meat and uses the profits to fund further research, is trying to promote whale-eating and secure new distribution channels.

"Is it OK to eat whale meat? Of course it is," says a pamphlet entitled "Delicious Whales", distributed by the government-affiliated Japan Whaling Association. "Even if we capture 2,000 whales a year for 100 years, it's OK because whale numbers are growing."

But the association acknowledges whale is difficult to sell to modern consumers. The meat was considered a rich source of protein in the lean years after the Second World War, but people moved on to other meats - notably beef - as they became more affluent.

Some local councils have started to tackle the challenge by promoting whale meat in school lunches. Wakayama, an area with a strong whale-hunting tradition some 280 miles south-west of Tokyo, has been aggressive in getting youngsters to indulge, introducing whale meals at 270 public schools in 2005. Nutritionists have developed child-friendly dishes, including whale meatballs, hamburgers and spaghetti bolognese.

But it may take a long time to change consumer habits. Young diners at a low-cost restaurant in Tokyo turned up their noses at the blubber this week. "To put it simply, whale meat tastes horrible," said Kosuke Nakamura, 30. He said younger people were put off by the tough, pungent meat, while it brought back memories of post-war poverty for older generations.

While few Japanese voice environmental concerns over whaling, young people such as Nakamura say it has brought the country a lot of unfavourable publicity. "Whaling's so bad for Japan's image. I don't know why we still hunt," he said.

But a trader at one of Tsukiji market's biggest wholesalers remained optimistic. "The fall in prices is a good thing because it will make whale meat more accessible," Yoshiaki Kochi said. "Japanese will never forget the taste of whale. It's part of our culture. It's in our DNA."