Just another entry in our segment of “Why Zoos Shouldn’t Exist.” Sadly, another zoo is to blame for unnecessary deaths
Article:
Calgary Zoo admits it may be to blame for deaths of 41 stingrays last spring
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090204/national/stingray_deaths
By Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press
CALGARY - An independent investigation is needed to look into the operations of the Calgary Zoo following a spate of wildlife deaths at the facility, an Ontario-based animal protection group said Tuesday.
The call from Zoocheck Canada comes as the president of the Calgary Zoo admitted human error is almost certainly to blame for the deaths of 41 stingrays last spring.
"We need to be very frank here and our main expertise is not in fish at the Calgary Zoo," president Clement Lanthier admitted at a news conference.
Lanthier calculated he was "99 per cent sure" a lack of dissolved oxygen in the water tank killed 41 of 43 cownose rays last May.
"This is something we want to expand. I think we have a responsibility to connect Calgarians - not only to the land animals but what's going on in the ocean."
The stingray exhibit was just reopened to the public in December. Zoo officials said at the time it was impossible to say exactly what had caused last May's deaths.
Cathy Gaviller, director of conservation, education and research at the zoo, still believes that.
"The honest answer is we can't say for sure because we can't prove it," she added. "It's not like we're 99.9 per cent sure and that's a scientific measurement of our certainty levels - it's a figure of speech."
"We can't prove this is the case, but we strongly believe dissolved oxygen was the cause of the mortalities."
There have been a number of other deaths at the Calgary Zoo, including four lowland gorillas, a baby elephant and a hippo that had been transported from the Denver Zoo.
Julie Woodyer from Zoocheck Canada said operations at the Calgary Zoo have been in a downward spiral and there needs to be someone outside the industry to investigate all of its operations.
"I personally think the person at the top is responsible for training his staff, for making sure that he knows how to care for the animals that he's bringing into the facility," Woodyer said from Toronto.
"To me, this just goes to the irresponsibility of this particular facility," she said.
"The Calgary Zoo had a very good reputation for many, many years and, probably in about the last decade, has slipped gradually and continues to get worse as time goes on."
Zoocheck wrote a letter to the Calgary Zoo in November 2008 asking the facility seek an independent investigation into the zoo's operation.
"Presumably if the zoo felt it had no issues and thought it was doing an exemplary job as they are constantly claiming they are, they would welcome such an investigation," said Woodyer.
Gaviller rejected the idea of an independent investigation.
"I'm not sure what Zoocheck's credentials are in terms of knowing how to look after a stingray tank. I think we do a good job of looking after our animals and sometimes I think, what is Zoocheck doing for conservation," she said.
"It's easy to sit back and criticize."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Iceland Re Joins Japan in Whale Killing Business: Reconsiders Whaling Quota Increase
As stated below, “Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorize commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, although the whale meat is sold for consumption.”
Though this article discusses a possible decrease, it’s clear that Iceland will still take part in whaling. So, unfortunately, the whale killing will resume.
Article:
The Hunt Is On ... Or Not
http://www.grist.org/news/2009/02/03/whales/index.html?source=rss
Iceland reconsiders whaling quota increase
Posted at 2:43 PM on 03 Feb 2009
REYKJAVIK -- Iceland's new fisheries minister said Tuesday he might revise a sixfold increase in the country's disputed commercial whale hunt set by the previous government a week ago.
Steingrimur Sigfusson said whalers would receive a formal warning that the quota of 150 fin whales and up to 150 minke whales a year over the next five years was being reconsidered.
"By this, we are ensuring that expectations will not rise towards something that could change," he told reporters, adding that his ministry would review the North Atlantic island nation's whaling policy along with the ministries of foreign affairs, tourism and the environment.
Before the exiting government increased the quota on January 27, Iceland, which pulled out of an international whaling moratorium in 2006 after 16 years, had a quota of just nine fin whales and 40 minke whales per year.
The new quota was decided a day after former Prime Minister Geir Haarde's pro-whaling Independence Party and its Social Democratic coalition partner announced the government was to resign after months of protests over the country's economic meltdown.
Iceland's new left-wing interim government, made up of anti-whaling parties the Social Democrats and the Left Greens, took power on Sunday.
Conservation group Greenpeace welcomed Tuesday's announcement, saying in a statement it hoped the new government would not only reverse the quota decision "but end Icelandic whaling entirely."
Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorize commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, although the whale meat is sold for consumption.
Though this article discusses a possible decrease, it’s clear that Iceland will still take part in whaling. So, unfortunately, the whale killing will resume.
Article:
The Hunt Is On ... Or Not
http://www.grist.org/news/2009/02/03/whales/index.html?source=rss
Iceland reconsiders whaling quota increase
Posted at 2:43 PM on 03 Feb 2009
REYKJAVIK -- Iceland's new fisheries minister said Tuesday he might revise a sixfold increase in the country's disputed commercial whale hunt set by the previous government a week ago.
Steingrimur Sigfusson said whalers would receive a formal warning that the quota of 150 fin whales and up to 150 minke whales a year over the next five years was being reconsidered.
"By this, we are ensuring that expectations will not rise towards something that could change," he told reporters, adding that his ministry would review the North Atlantic island nation's whaling policy along with the ministries of foreign affairs, tourism and the environment.
Before the exiting government increased the quota on January 27, Iceland, which pulled out of an international whaling moratorium in 2006 after 16 years, had a quota of just nine fin whales and 40 minke whales per year.
The new quota was decided a day after former Prime Minister Geir Haarde's pro-whaling Independence Party and its Social Democratic coalition partner announced the government was to resign after months of protests over the country's economic meltdown.
Iceland's new left-wing interim government, made up of anti-whaling parties the Social Democrats and the Left Greens, took power on Sunday.
Conservation group Greenpeace welcomed Tuesday's announcement, saying in a statement it hoped the new government would not only reverse the quota decision "but end Icelandic whaling entirely."
Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorize commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, although the whale meat is sold for consumption.
Sea Lions Newest Victims of Human Trash in Sea and Land: Entanglement and Death Occurring at High Rate in Alaska
You’ve probably all heard of how plastic 6 pack holders can entangle wildlife and eventually strangle them. Fish are at a particular threat to this. Well, now many marine mammals are also falling victim to human trash. The article below discuses the threats to sea lions in Alaska. Apparently, entanglement and death are occurring due to human trash.
As stated below, "Any type of loops in rope, monofilament fishing line, nets - these are all potentially hazardous," Jemison said. "There are some simple things we can do to avoid these types of entanglements: Secure garbage when at sea or on the coast, clean up trash you find on the beach that could wash into the ocean, and cut any loops that you are discarding."
I won’t state the obvious disturbing reality of this situation.
Article:
Entangled: Saving sea lions snared in trash
http://juneauempire.com/stories/062908/out_297319388.shtml
Researchers work on methods to free marine mammals
By Riley Woodford | For the Juneau Empire
About 40 sea lions lounged on the rocks at the Benjamin Island haulout north of Juneau, and one was injured. A thin, white plastic packing band circled his neck and cut deep into his skin.
Two biologists studied the animal from a skiff 40 yards off the rocks. Lauri Jemison and Jamie King of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game discussed possible ways to free the entangled animal. None seemed very promising.
Jemison and King are marine mammal researchers and they're trying to help entangled sea lions and prevent further entanglements. In recent years about 400 entangled sea lions have been documented in Southeast Alaska, although biologists believe the actual number is higher. About half the animals have loops around their necks - mostly hard plastic packing bands or heavy rubber loops made from inner tube material. About half are caught in fishing gear. A few are tangled in netting or rope, and one has an old tire stuck around its neck.
"Any kind of loop that goes into the water can be deadly," Jemison said. "A small loop can be deadly to seabirds and fish, a larger loop can entangle marine mammals. Synthetic materials are the worst. A simple solution is to cut any kind of loop you might have."
Bait boxes are often secured by packing bands which are made of a hard plastic material, and if those are lost overboard, uncut, they can be a source of entangling material. "We have seen a number of sea lions with packing bands around their neck, with the band cutting into the skin and flesh," Jemison said. "As the sea lion grows, the band cuts more deeply and eventually can kill the animal."
Jemison said young sea lions are extremely curious and investigate objects in the water and on beaches, and wind up with the loops around their necks.
"We watch the pups and juveniles play with anything and everything on the beach," she said. "Seaweed, we've seen wire in the water and watched them throwing it about, any debris in the water and they'll play with it."
About half the entanglements involve fishing gear. Sea lions will pursue and eat a fish that's been hooked by a sport or commercial fisherman, and wind up swallowing the hook. Jemison and her colleagues see animals with flashers attached to their mouths, hanging from line tied to a swallowed hook. Sometimes fishing lures and hooks are visible, and biologists believe more animals may be hooked but showing no outward sign. A necropsy of a dead sea lion found near Gustavus three years ago revealed a fishhook in its digestive tract.
"There's no way to know how many may be entangled (in this way), as there may be no external sign of entanglement," Jemison said. "They're interested in fish, and the sea lions are basically entangling themselves - when folks are out salmon fishing the sea lions are coming after the fish on the line, going for the fish and eating it."
Helping entangled or hooked animals is difficult. Jemison and King are looking to adapt the proven capture methods generally used for research. But these techniques focus on smaller, juvenile animals, and animals of all ages and both sexes are entangled in all different types of gear and debris. The techniques biologists use to capture animals such as moose and bears don't translate well to sea lions. A sea lion could be darted with a tranquilizer or immobilizing drug, but the animal could fall or jump in the water and then drown. The same could happen if a net gun is used, although there is some potential for these devices that throw nets.
"Basically we need the perfect situation - the animal is up high on the rocks, by itself, so there's no chance of catching two at once, and we need to be able to secure it so it doesn't go in the water," Jemison said.
Jemison said there have been a few successes. One small sea lion was tangled in line, and King was able to grab the line and pull the animal up to the skiff and cut it free. Elsewhere, some small sea lions have been restrained and plastic loops cut off their necks. The bands were embedded in the skin and biologists pulled the plastic through and out.
Far more promising is the prospect of reducing entangling materials in the environment. Cutting any loop is a good start.
"Any type of loops in rope, monofilament fishing line, nets - these are all potentially hazardous," Jemison said. "There are some simple things we can do to avoid these types of entanglements: Secure garbage when at sea or on the coast, clean up trash you find on the beach that could wash into the ocean, and cut any loops that you are discarding."
A number of organizations are working on the issue. The Marine Mammal Stranding Network, part of the National Marine Fisheries Service, is collecting data on entangled animals and sources of materials. The Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation has a Marine Debris program, and they're very interested in cleaning beaches and determining where the debris is coming from, Jemison said. "We're working with them to identify some of the hot spots - area that accumulate a lot of debris, areas that should be cleansed, and sources of material getting washed back in the ocean."
Jemison and King are working with a Prescott grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop methods to disentangle sea lions and to create a short video of entangled sea lions with information on how people can reduce entangling materials in the marine environment. They also plan to clean up beaches and monitor them.
"This summer we'll identify certain beaches near some of the larger haulouts and rookeries where we can monitor marine debris," Jemison said. "We'll clean debris off these beaches this summer, then we'll be able to go back each year as we're doing our annual Southeast-wide sea lion surveys and clean them off again and hopefully get an annual accumulation rate. Cleaning beaches is a great way folks can have a positive impact and reduce entangling materials out there."
• Riley Woodford produces the Sounds Wild radio program and is the editor of Alaska Fish and Wildlife News, www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov., the online publication of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
As stated below, "Any type of loops in rope, monofilament fishing line, nets - these are all potentially hazardous," Jemison said. "There are some simple things we can do to avoid these types of entanglements: Secure garbage when at sea or on the coast, clean up trash you find on the beach that could wash into the ocean, and cut any loops that you are discarding."
I won’t state the obvious disturbing reality of this situation.
Article:
Entangled: Saving sea lions snared in trash
http://juneauempire.com/stories/062908/out_297319388.shtml
Researchers work on methods to free marine mammals
By Riley Woodford | For the Juneau Empire
About 40 sea lions lounged on the rocks at the Benjamin Island haulout north of Juneau, and one was injured. A thin, white plastic packing band circled his neck and cut deep into his skin.
Two biologists studied the animal from a skiff 40 yards off the rocks. Lauri Jemison and Jamie King of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game discussed possible ways to free the entangled animal. None seemed very promising.
Jemison and King are marine mammal researchers and they're trying to help entangled sea lions and prevent further entanglements. In recent years about 400 entangled sea lions have been documented in Southeast Alaska, although biologists believe the actual number is higher. About half the animals have loops around their necks - mostly hard plastic packing bands or heavy rubber loops made from inner tube material. About half are caught in fishing gear. A few are tangled in netting or rope, and one has an old tire stuck around its neck.
"Any kind of loop that goes into the water can be deadly," Jemison said. "A small loop can be deadly to seabirds and fish, a larger loop can entangle marine mammals. Synthetic materials are the worst. A simple solution is to cut any kind of loop you might have."
Bait boxes are often secured by packing bands which are made of a hard plastic material, and if those are lost overboard, uncut, they can be a source of entangling material. "We have seen a number of sea lions with packing bands around their neck, with the band cutting into the skin and flesh," Jemison said. "As the sea lion grows, the band cuts more deeply and eventually can kill the animal."
Jemison said young sea lions are extremely curious and investigate objects in the water and on beaches, and wind up with the loops around their necks.
"We watch the pups and juveniles play with anything and everything on the beach," she said. "Seaweed, we've seen wire in the water and watched them throwing it about, any debris in the water and they'll play with it."
About half the entanglements involve fishing gear. Sea lions will pursue and eat a fish that's been hooked by a sport or commercial fisherman, and wind up swallowing the hook. Jemison and her colleagues see animals with flashers attached to their mouths, hanging from line tied to a swallowed hook. Sometimes fishing lures and hooks are visible, and biologists believe more animals may be hooked but showing no outward sign. A necropsy of a dead sea lion found near Gustavus three years ago revealed a fishhook in its digestive tract.
"There's no way to know how many may be entangled (in this way), as there may be no external sign of entanglement," Jemison said. "They're interested in fish, and the sea lions are basically entangling themselves - when folks are out salmon fishing the sea lions are coming after the fish on the line, going for the fish and eating it."
Helping entangled or hooked animals is difficult. Jemison and King are looking to adapt the proven capture methods generally used for research. But these techniques focus on smaller, juvenile animals, and animals of all ages and both sexes are entangled in all different types of gear and debris. The techniques biologists use to capture animals such as moose and bears don't translate well to sea lions. A sea lion could be darted with a tranquilizer or immobilizing drug, but the animal could fall or jump in the water and then drown. The same could happen if a net gun is used, although there is some potential for these devices that throw nets.
"Basically we need the perfect situation - the animal is up high on the rocks, by itself, so there's no chance of catching two at once, and we need to be able to secure it so it doesn't go in the water," Jemison said.
Jemison said there have been a few successes. One small sea lion was tangled in line, and King was able to grab the line and pull the animal up to the skiff and cut it free. Elsewhere, some small sea lions have been restrained and plastic loops cut off their necks. The bands were embedded in the skin and biologists pulled the plastic through and out.
Far more promising is the prospect of reducing entangling materials in the environment. Cutting any loop is a good start.
"Any type of loops in rope, monofilament fishing line, nets - these are all potentially hazardous," Jemison said. "There are some simple things we can do to avoid these types of entanglements: Secure garbage when at sea or on the coast, clean up trash you find on the beach that could wash into the ocean, and cut any loops that you are discarding."
A number of organizations are working on the issue. The Marine Mammal Stranding Network, part of the National Marine Fisheries Service, is collecting data on entangled animals and sources of materials. The Marine Conservation Alliance Foundation has a Marine Debris program, and they're very interested in cleaning beaches and determining where the debris is coming from, Jemison said. "We're working with them to identify some of the hot spots - area that accumulate a lot of debris, areas that should be cleansed, and sources of material getting washed back in the ocean."
Jemison and King are working with a Prescott grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop methods to disentangle sea lions and to create a short video of entangled sea lions with information on how people can reduce entangling materials in the marine environment. They also plan to clean up beaches and monitor them.
"This summer we'll identify certain beaches near some of the larger haulouts and rookeries where we can monitor marine debris," Jemison said. "We'll clean debris off these beaches this summer, then we'll be able to go back each year as we're doing our annual Southeast-wide sea lion surveys and clean them off again and hopefully get an annual accumulation rate. Cleaning beaches is a great way folks can have a positive impact and reduce entangling materials out there."
• Riley Woodford produces the Sounds Wild radio program and is the editor of Alaska Fish and Wildlife News, www.wildlifenews.alaska.gov., the online publication of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Dogpile.com Search and Rescue Program: Revenue from your Web Searches will go to the ASPCA and Animal Abuse Prevention
Revenue from your Web Searches will go to the ASPCA and Animal Abuse Prevention Simply by Using Dogpile.com for your Web Searches
Seems like a pretty straight forward program. Keep in mind that not every search you perform generates revenue. Money is generated when you support an advertiser that appears on their search results page. As a metasearch engine, Dogpile.com pulls results from the major search engines. So, unless you’re doing advanced search, or tailored search, you will see the same top results from the major search engines that you would have if you used them directly. So, then, if you care about the cause, then why not use Dogpile.com for your web searches? Might as well!
For more information about the Dogpile.com Search & Rescue Program see, http://www.dogpilesearchandrescue.com/
Here is more information about the Dogpile.com Search & Rescue program taken from the program website at http://www.dogpilesearchandrescue.com/
“About Dogpile Search & Rescue
Search and Rescue is a Dogpile program through which we’re donating a portion of our revenue to the ASPCA. Our goal is to contribute $1 million to animal rescue by the end of 2009.
We at Dogpile are passionate about the welfare of animals. We believe in helping pets, and we know many of our loyal users do too. Dogpile Search & Rescue is just the latest of our pet-affinity initiatives. In December 2007, Dogpile raised $25,000 for the Humane Society, and we recently launched a pet adoption widget with Petfinder.com, the leading online pet adoption site in the world. In 2008, we developed the Search & Rescue Toolbar so users could more easily access Dogpile, search the Web right from their browser and connect to sites and communities supporting pet adoption and animal abuse prevention.”
Seems like a pretty straight forward program. Keep in mind that not every search you perform generates revenue. Money is generated when you support an advertiser that appears on their search results page. As a metasearch engine, Dogpile.com pulls results from the major search engines. So, unless you’re doing advanced search, or tailored search, you will see the same top results from the major search engines that you would have if you used them directly. So, then, if you care about the cause, then why not use Dogpile.com for your web searches? Might as well!
For more information about the Dogpile.com Search & Rescue Program see, http://www.dogpilesearchandrescue.com/
Here is more information about the Dogpile.com Search & Rescue program taken from the program website at http://www.dogpilesearchandrescue.com/
“About Dogpile Search & Rescue
Search and Rescue is a Dogpile program through which we’re donating a portion of our revenue to the ASPCA. Our goal is to contribute $1 million to animal rescue by the end of 2009.
We at Dogpile are passionate about the welfare of animals. We believe in helping pets, and we know many of our loyal users do too. Dogpile Search & Rescue is just the latest of our pet-affinity initiatives. In December 2007, Dogpile raised $25,000 for the Humane Society, and we recently launched a pet adoption widget with Petfinder.com, the leading online pet adoption site in the world. In 2008, we developed the Search & Rescue Toolbar so users could more easily access Dogpile, search the Web right from their browser and connect to sites and communities supporting pet adoption and animal abuse prevention.”
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Pesticides in Pet Products, Including Flea-and-Tick Products Killing Dogs and Cats: Would you put Pesticides Directly Onto your Body?
Unfortunately, the obvious risk of such chemicals to the health of companion animals is once again apparent. Though many chemicals are to blame for early death and on set of such issues as cancer, pyrethroids are discussed in this story. As stated below, “At least 1,600 pet deaths related to spot on treatments with pyrethroids were reported to the EPA over the last five years…”
This really has been common knowledge for some time, as really, would you put pesticides directly onto your body? Well, that’s exactly what happens when you add such products as those that kill fleas and ticks to the hair and skin of a companion animal. Seems pretty obvious.
Sadly though, this idiotic practice continues as you’ll read below.
Article:
Pesticides in Pet Products: Why Your Dog or Cat May Be at Risk
By M.B. Pell and Jillian Olsen, The Center for Public Integrity
Posted on February 2, 2009, Printed on February 3, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/123420/pesticides_in_pet_products%3A_why_your_dog_or_cat_may_be_at_risk/
Last June Diane Bromenschenkel applied a flea-and-tick product to her English pointer, Wings, so the dog wouldn't get ticks while hunting pheasant in the tall grasslands of western Idaho. Wings, a healthy five-year-old with a sleek white coat and a chocolate brown mask, enjoyed long walks in the woods, bacon treats, and burying things in the yard. But three months after the pesticide was applied, the animal was dead.
It was just hours following the use of the product that Bromenschenkel knew something was wrong. She noticed her dog walking around in a daze. Wings was unresponsive. On the advice of her veterinarian, Bromenschenkel tried to wash off the treatment —Bio Spot Spot On Flea and Tick Control for Dogs -- but the next day Wings was still suffering.
The dog stopped eating and drinking despite the application of appetite increasers, said Patricia Pence, the veterinarian and owner of South Wind Veterinary Hospital in Nampa, Idaho, where Wings was treated. "The anorexia is a direct result of the Bio Spot," Pence said. She believes the insecticide in Bio Spot damaged the portion of Wings' brain responsible for hunger and thirst. So she inserted a feeding tube into the dog's neck and for the next three months Bromenschenkel and Wings were in and out of the veterinary hospital.
During this period, Bromenschenkel woke up every two hours at night to give Wings an injection of liquid nutrient through the neck. She spent thousands of dollars on vet bills. Despite the best efforts of Bromenschenkel and Pence, however, the damage was done. In September, Wings' kidneys failed and Bromenschenkel made the difficult decision to put her dog to sleep. In days Wings had gone from a healthy dog, running alongside horses in the Owyhee Mountains, to an emaciated wreck, chasing phantom birds in the kitchen. "What's so terrible about it is that if you had known, you would never have used it," said Bromenschenkel of the Bio Spot.
The Debate Over Pyrethroids
imageWings died three months after being treated with Bio Spot flea and tick drops; her vet thinks the product damaged the part of Wings' brain responsible for hunger and thirst. Credit: Diane Bromenschenkel. Bio Spot contains a 45 percent solution of the active ingredient permethrin, a synthetic neurotoxin belonging to the pyrethroid family of chemicals. Bio Spot is one of several over-the-counter spot on (meaning squeezed on to a particular spot) anti-flea-and-tick products that consumers apply to cats and dogs between the shoulder blades and sometimes at the base of the tail. The animal's natural oils spread the insecticide over its body, making its skin and fur inhospitable to parasites. These pyrethroid-based flea and tick treatments -- from Hartz, Sergeant's, Farnam, and Bayer -- are approved for sale by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and they are readily available at grocery stores, specialty pet retailers, and hardware stores. But they are also linked to thousands of reported pet poisonings, and they have stirred the ire of pet owners, the concern of veterinarians, and the attention of regulatory agencies.
Manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter spot on treatments say the products are generally safe and effective when used properly, but they concede there are cats and dogs that either have a preexisting condition or an acute sensitivity to these treatments that leads to an illness.
The industry position, however, may dismiss safety concerns too casually. At least 1,600 pet deaths related to spot on treatments with pyrethroids were reported to the EPA over the last five years, according to an analysis of EPA pesticide incident exposure data by the Center for Public Integrity. That is about double the number of reported fatalities tied to similar treatments without pyrethroids, such as Frontline and Advantage -- although these products also have critics.
Pyrethroid spot ons also account for more than half of "major" pesticide pet reactions reported to EPA over the last five years -- that is, those incidents involving serious medical reactions such as brain damage, heart attacks, and violent seizures. In contrast, non-pyrethroid spot on treatments accounted for only about 6 percent of all major incidents.
In the last five years, the EPA received a total of more than 25,000 reports of pet pesticide reactions of every sort -- fatal, major, moderate, and minor -- to over-the-counter pyrethroid spot on products. This compares to 10,500 reports of all pet incidents related to shampoos, powders, sprays, collars, dips, mousses, lotions, and towels. This analysis does not take into account how much of each product was used over the last five years as the EPA does not have that information.
The EPA cautions that it does not confirm the authenticity of these reports and most of the claims come from consumers and not trained toxicologists. The EPA uses the database to observe broad trends and to identify significant spikes in incidents for specific products and chemicals.
Warning Signs
A few websites, run by pet owners, specialize in educating people on the dangers of over-the-counter spot on treatments. Almost every day someone posts a new horror story, often involving a late-night emergency trip to the vet. "I cannot stop crying knowing that if I hadn't put that on them then they would still be here playing and loving as they always did before," reads one post about a woman's loss of two kittens in October.
imageEllie, a mini dachshund from La Vernia, Texas, suffered chemical burns where Bio Spot flea and tick drops were applied to her back. Credit: Michele Worcester.
The concentrations of pyrethroids in over-the-counter spot on pet treatments range from a 40 percent to an 85 percent solution, eight to 17 times stronger than the strongest pyrethroid product currently approved for use on humans. Neither the EPA, which generally regulates topically applied products, nor the Food and Drug Administration, which generally regulates orally applied pet products, has a product registered for human application containing a pyrethroid concentration above 5 percent, and that FDA-approved product requires a doctor's prescription. In fact, the Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs warning reads: "Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin," while the application portion of the label directs people to apply the treatment "to the dog's skin."
But these high concentrations may be necessary in pet products because pets are more apt to come in contact with fleas and ticks, according to Margaret Rice, chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration branch. Some human products, like the 5 percent permethrin shampoo, also call for more of the product to be applied than the just under one ounce in the spot on treatments.
Pyrethroid toxicity targets nerve and muscle cells in pets, according to a study published in The Veterinary Journal in June 2008. The study found that dermal exposure by application to the skin or coat is the most common route of toxic exposure, potentially causing hyperexcitability, tremors, profuse salivation, and seizures. The seizures can result in brain damage or, less frequently, death.
Representatives of Central LifeSciences, the parent company of Farnam, the distributor of Bio Spot, said that they could not discuss the death of Wings because their investigation of the incident is still underway. The company said reports of adverse reactions are rare, about three of every 10,000 doses for cat products and five of every 10,000 doses for dog products. These numbers include incidents that resulted from misapplication and preexisting medical conditions, according to Central LifeSciences. "Bio Spot Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Dogs has met all applicable EPA registration requirements and is approved for topical use on dogs," the company said in a letter they sent in July to one unhappy customer whose dog had recently died.
"Even if it is owner error much of the time, something is not working the way it should be," said Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States.
Hartz Mountain Corp. representatives said via e-mail that the active ingredient in the company's spot on dog treatments, the pyrethroid d-phenothrin, and the active ingredient in their cat product that kills adult fleas, the pyrethroid etofenprox, are categorized as least toxic by the EPA, as opposed to the active ingredient in Frontline, fipronil, and the active ingredient in Advantage, imidacloprid, which, while much less concentrated, are rated as moderately toxic. Sergeant's cat spot on treatments also contain etofenprox, but the company has spot on dog products that contain cyphenothrin and products that contain permethrin, moderately toxic pyrethroids.
Another possible explanation for the number of incidents is that consumers often misuse flea and tick products, causing the sickness that pet owners later blame on the treatments, said Jennifer Windrum, a spokeswoman for Sergeant's. "Pet owners feel incredibly guilty if they misapply it to their pet," Windrum said. "It's easier to blame a company." Common misapplications include applying more powerful dog products to cats, applying the product where the pet can lick it, and using a treatment meant for a large animal on a small one. The directions on these products include a description of where to apply, sometimes a diagram, and if it's a dog product, multiple warnings not to it use on cats.
Forest Desmond and his wife Marilynn received a letter from Sergeant's offering to pay their $125 vet bill after they applied Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs to their five dogs. The letter from Sergeant's also stated that the company believed the dogs may have licked the product off each other, a violation of the application instructions. "The Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs is for external use only and has several warnings on the package indicating such," the letter says. The product's label does not instruct consumers to keep dogs separated after treatment, but Sergeant's has submitted a request to the EPA to have the label changed. Sergeant's "Look at the Label" website already recommends people separate their pets after application.
"What they're trying to say is the dogs licked it off each other and thereby took it in internally, but they didn't lick it off, it burned their skin," Marilynn Desmond said. "My response to that is they're trying to shift the blame from the producer to the user. If this had been my first dog, I might have fallen for that."
The authors of the study in The Veterinary Journal agree that misuse of pyrethroid products is often the cause of illnesses, although they also point out that accidental ingestion by mouth or during grooming is another common exposure route. "The best way to avoid serious problems is by educating pet owners to use products strictly according to label directions," the study says. "Veterinarians must advise clients using flea care products to read and follow label instructions completely before applying them on or around their pets." The rub here, some veterinarians say, is pyrethroid spot on treatments are over-the-counter products, easily purchased without consulting a veterinarian.
Michael Murphy, a veterinarian and toxicologist at the University of Minnesota, speaking for the American Veterinary Medical Association, said he rarely hears of pet reactions to spot on treatments, and when he does it's usually because a consumer applied a stronger dog product to a cat. But for some pet advocates, the misapplication explanation misses the point. The Humane Society of the United States has heard this reasoning before, but still recommends pet owners avoid over-the-counter spot on products and only use treatments recommended by veterinarians, according to Stephanie Shain, the organization's director of outreach. "With the number of complaints we get it seems like an extraordinarily high rate of problems," she said. "Even if it is owner error much of the time, something is not working the way it should be. I think at the very least there need to be much stronger warnings on those products cautioning pet owners about the dangers involved with using them."
Others express similar concerns. "Sometimes I wonder why it's still approved," said Mark Grossman, a co-owner and veterinarian of Roanoke Island Animal Clinic and a toxicology consultant for the Veterinary Information Network. "They can't get it out there without the EPA approving it. Apparently they say if they do enough tests, it's still OK. In real life though, I think we're seeing more problems than we should."
Paying the Bills
After Samantha Ribble's English bulldog, Bella, and pug, Chloe, developed oozing sores where she placed drops of Sergeant's Gold Squeeze on for Dogs, she asked Sergeant's to pay her veterinarian bill, $309. Without admitting any liability, Sergeant's agreed to pay the bill, on the condition that Ribble sign a release that read as follows: "I agree not to make any oral or written communication which disparages or has the effect of damaging the reputation of or otherwise working in any way to the detriment of Sergeant's. This Release shall inure the benefit of Sergeant's heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns and shall bind me and my heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns." In the same letter, Sergeant's notes that its products are closely regulated by the EPA and tested in "accordance with EPA rules and regulations in order to ensure that the products are safe."
This is true. The EPA approved the company's pyrethroid spot on treatments just as it has approved all spot on treatments, but the agency has a history of approving pet products in the past only to pull them from the market later. The EPA approved the use of chlorpyrifos products, cancelled for use on pets in 2001; diazinon products, cancelled for use on pets in 2001; and phosmet products, cancelled for use on pets by 2004. The products were approved, defended aggressively by the chemical industry, and then yanked off the market. They were largely replaced by pyrethroid products, which are generally thought to be less acutely toxic.
Even pyrethroid pet products, however, have been approved and then pulled. In 2000, the EPA received a rash of reports from cat owners concerning Hartz Mountain Corp.'s Advanced Care Once a Month Flea & Tick Drops for Cats, a spot on treatment containing the pyrethroid d-phenothrin. The agency received reports of cats losing their hair, salivating uncontrollably, experiencing tremors, and sometimes dying. Judy Van Wyk of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against Hartz in November 2001 on behalf of pet owners whose cats had reacted to Hartz cat drops. The complaint alleged that "Hartz has also known since at least March 2001 that adverse reactions in cats to the Drops is a common problem." The suit was voluntarily withdrawn in November 2002, which may indicate an out-of-court settlement, but neither Hartz nor Van Wyk would comment on the case.
Three years later, after the company and the agency experimented unsuccessfully with stronger warning labels, the EPA entered into negotiations with Hartz Mountain Corp. and the company agreed to stop selling the product.
"When we register these products, we feel they're safe," said Marion Johnson, branch chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration division.
Rice, chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticides registration branch, said the agency knows it has had problems with these products in the past. Still the EPA holds the position, as with all products registered by the agency, that pyrethroid-based spot on treatments are not harmful if consumers follow label instructions. The 25,000 reported incidents alone will not change this conclusion, Rice said. The EPA is investigating pyrethroid incidents, involving both humans and pets, and when it finishes this process -- the EPA does not have a target date yet for doing so -- it may make regulatory changes, but until then the agency stands by its conclusion. "Our decisions to register these products and compounds are done with significant data," said Marion Johnson, branch chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration division. "When we register these products, we feel they're safe."
So safe in fact that Johnson said the EPA does not expect any pets will have a sensitivity to spot on products leading to an illness; the incident reports, in Johnson's view, are not at all definitive. Manufacturers, for their part, do acknowledge the existence of sensitive cats and dogs. "There is a certain percentage of dogs out there that, just like with humans, will have an allergic reaction no matter what," Windrum, the Sergeant's spokeswoman, said. Less than 1 percent of sales result in an adverse reaction when the product is used as directed by the label, she said.
The EPA cannot make its own assessment because unlike the regulations directing the FDA's approval of human products, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act does not require pet products to undergo field trials prior to approval. So the agency can only require less extensive testing, often only on one breed of dog or cat. This makes it difficult to predict the effects on the broader population of users.
The EPA also considers the need consumers have to control fleas and ticks on their pets and the benefit provided by low-cost pyrethroid spot ons when making decisions about these products. The over-the-counter pyrethroid spot ons are typically half the price of Frontline and Advantage.
EPA scientists continue to monitor the safety of pet pyrethroids. In November, several EPA employees at the Office of Research and Development authored a piece in BMC Genomics, an online journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles, that found exposure to the pyrethroids permethrin and deltamethrin in young rats "could result in detrimental effects on neurological function later in life." The study found this was a possibility even using doses of permethrin that do not cause immediate, acute symptoms. The authors of the article suggested many other avenues of research -- including examining the effects of other pyrethroids on neurological function.
The EPA also hopes to improve the quality of incident reports through an online reporting system for veterinarians that began this fall. In addition, the agency is analyzing pet incidents to identify patterns that may lead to additional labeling or further regulatory action, and reviewing the process of approving pet products to see if changes are warranted.
"We need to make sound scientific decisions," Johnson said. "On the one hand we have the data that says this product might be safe and on the other we have incidents that say it might not be."
This really has been common knowledge for some time, as really, would you put pesticides directly onto your body? Well, that’s exactly what happens when you add such products as those that kill fleas and ticks to the hair and skin of a companion animal. Seems pretty obvious.
Sadly though, this idiotic practice continues as you’ll read below.
Article:
Pesticides in Pet Products: Why Your Dog or Cat May Be at Risk
By M.B. Pell and Jillian Olsen, The Center for Public Integrity
Posted on February 2, 2009, Printed on February 3, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/123420/pesticides_in_pet_products%3A_why_your_dog_or_cat_may_be_at_risk/
Last June Diane Bromenschenkel applied a flea-and-tick product to her English pointer, Wings, so the dog wouldn't get ticks while hunting pheasant in the tall grasslands of western Idaho. Wings, a healthy five-year-old with a sleek white coat and a chocolate brown mask, enjoyed long walks in the woods, bacon treats, and burying things in the yard. But three months after the pesticide was applied, the animal was dead.
It was just hours following the use of the product that Bromenschenkel knew something was wrong. She noticed her dog walking around in a daze. Wings was unresponsive. On the advice of her veterinarian, Bromenschenkel tried to wash off the treatment —Bio Spot Spot On Flea and Tick Control for Dogs -- but the next day Wings was still suffering.
The dog stopped eating and drinking despite the application of appetite increasers, said Patricia Pence, the veterinarian and owner of South Wind Veterinary Hospital in Nampa, Idaho, where Wings was treated. "The anorexia is a direct result of the Bio Spot," Pence said. She believes the insecticide in Bio Spot damaged the portion of Wings' brain responsible for hunger and thirst. So she inserted a feeding tube into the dog's neck and for the next three months Bromenschenkel and Wings were in and out of the veterinary hospital.
During this period, Bromenschenkel woke up every two hours at night to give Wings an injection of liquid nutrient through the neck. She spent thousands of dollars on vet bills. Despite the best efforts of Bromenschenkel and Pence, however, the damage was done. In September, Wings' kidneys failed and Bromenschenkel made the difficult decision to put her dog to sleep. In days Wings had gone from a healthy dog, running alongside horses in the Owyhee Mountains, to an emaciated wreck, chasing phantom birds in the kitchen. "What's so terrible about it is that if you had known, you would never have used it," said Bromenschenkel of the Bio Spot.
The Debate Over Pyrethroids
imageWings died three months after being treated with Bio Spot flea and tick drops; her vet thinks the product damaged the part of Wings' brain responsible for hunger and thirst. Credit: Diane Bromenschenkel. Bio Spot contains a 45 percent solution of the active ingredient permethrin, a synthetic neurotoxin belonging to the pyrethroid family of chemicals. Bio Spot is one of several over-the-counter spot on (meaning squeezed on to a particular spot) anti-flea-and-tick products that consumers apply to cats and dogs between the shoulder blades and sometimes at the base of the tail. The animal's natural oils spread the insecticide over its body, making its skin and fur inhospitable to parasites. These pyrethroid-based flea and tick treatments -- from Hartz, Sergeant's, Farnam, and Bayer -- are approved for sale by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and they are readily available at grocery stores, specialty pet retailers, and hardware stores. But they are also linked to thousands of reported pet poisonings, and they have stirred the ire of pet owners, the concern of veterinarians, and the attention of regulatory agencies.
Manufacturers and distributors of over-the-counter spot on treatments say the products are generally safe and effective when used properly, but they concede there are cats and dogs that either have a preexisting condition or an acute sensitivity to these treatments that leads to an illness.
The industry position, however, may dismiss safety concerns too casually. At least 1,600 pet deaths related to spot on treatments with pyrethroids were reported to the EPA over the last five years, according to an analysis of EPA pesticide incident exposure data by the Center for Public Integrity. That is about double the number of reported fatalities tied to similar treatments without pyrethroids, such as Frontline and Advantage -- although these products also have critics.
Pyrethroid spot ons also account for more than half of "major" pesticide pet reactions reported to EPA over the last five years -- that is, those incidents involving serious medical reactions such as brain damage, heart attacks, and violent seizures. In contrast, non-pyrethroid spot on treatments accounted for only about 6 percent of all major incidents.
In the last five years, the EPA received a total of more than 25,000 reports of pet pesticide reactions of every sort -- fatal, major, moderate, and minor -- to over-the-counter pyrethroid spot on products. This compares to 10,500 reports of all pet incidents related to shampoos, powders, sprays, collars, dips, mousses, lotions, and towels. This analysis does not take into account how much of each product was used over the last five years as the EPA does not have that information.
The EPA cautions that it does not confirm the authenticity of these reports and most of the claims come from consumers and not trained toxicologists. The EPA uses the database to observe broad trends and to identify significant spikes in incidents for specific products and chemicals.
Warning Signs
A few websites, run by pet owners, specialize in educating people on the dangers of over-the-counter spot on treatments. Almost every day someone posts a new horror story, often involving a late-night emergency trip to the vet. "I cannot stop crying knowing that if I hadn't put that on them then they would still be here playing and loving as they always did before," reads one post about a woman's loss of two kittens in October.
imageEllie, a mini dachshund from La Vernia, Texas, suffered chemical burns where Bio Spot flea and tick drops were applied to her back. Credit: Michele Worcester.
The concentrations of pyrethroids in over-the-counter spot on pet treatments range from a 40 percent to an 85 percent solution, eight to 17 times stronger than the strongest pyrethroid product currently approved for use on humans. Neither the EPA, which generally regulates topically applied products, nor the Food and Drug Administration, which generally regulates orally applied pet products, has a product registered for human application containing a pyrethroid concentration above 5 percent, and that FDA-approved product requires a doctor's prescription. In fact, the Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs warning reads: "Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through skin," while the application portion of the label directs people to apply the treatment "to the dog's skin."
But these high concentrations may be necessary in pet products because pets are more apt to come in contact with fleas and ticks, according to Margaret Rice, chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration branch. Some human products, like the 5 percent permethrin shampoo, also call for more of the product to be applied than the just under one ounce in the spot on treatments.
Pyrethroid toxicity targets nerve and muscle cells in pets, according to a study published in The Veterinary Journal in June 2008. The study found that dermal exposure by application to the skin or coat is the most common route of toxic exposure, potentially causing hyperexcitability, tremors, profuse salivation, and seizures. The seizures can result in brain damage or, less frequently, death.
Representatives of Central LifeSciences, the parent company of Farnam, the distributor of Bio Spot, said that they could not discuss the death of Wings because their investigation of the incident is still underway. The company said reports of adverse reactions are rare, about three of every 10,000 doses for cat products and five of every 10,000 doses for dog products. These numbers include incidents that resulted from misapplication and preexisting medical conditions, according to Central LifeSciences. "Bio Spot Spot On Flea & Tick Control for Dogs has met all applicable EPA registration requirements and is approved for topical use on dogs," the company said in a letter they sent in July to one unhappy customer whose dog had recently died.
"Even if it is owner error much of the time, something is not working the way it should be," said Stephanie Shain, director of outreach for the Humane Society of the United States.
Hartz Mountain Corp. representatives said via e-mail that the active ingredient in the company's spot on dog treatments, the pyrethroid d-phenothrin, and the active ingredient in their cat product that kills adult fleas, the pyrethroid etofenprox, are categorized as least toxic by the EPA, as opposed to the active ingredient in Frontline, fipronil, and the active ingredient in Advantage, imidacloprid, which, while much less concentrated, are rated as moderately toxic. Sergeant's cat spot on treatments also contain etofenprox, but the company has spot on dog products that contain cyphenothrin and products that contain permethrin, moderately toxic pyrethroids.
Another possible explanation for the number of incidents is that consumers often misuse flea and tick products, causing the sickness that pet owners later blame on the treatments, said Jennifer Windrum, a spokeswoman for Sergeant's. "Pet owners feel incredibly guilty if they misapply it to their pet," Windrum said. "It's easier to blame a company." Common misapplications include applying more powerful dog products to cats, applying the product where the pet can lick it, and using a treatment meant for a large animal on a small one. The directions on these products include a description of where to apply, sometimes a diagram, and if it's a dog product, multiple warnings not to it use on cats.
Forest Desmond and his wife Marilynn received a letter from Sergeant's offering to pay their $125 vet bill after they applied Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs to their five dogs. The letter from Sergeant's also stated that the company believed the dogs may have licked the product off each other, a violation of the application instructions. "The Sergeant's Gold Squeeze-On for Dogs is for external use only and has several warnings on the package indicating such," the letter says. The product's label does not instruct consumers to keep dogs separated after treatment, but Sergeant's has submitted a request to the EPA to have the label changed. Sergeant's "Look at the Label" website already recommends people separate their pets after application.
"What they're trying to say is the dogs licked it off each other and thereby took it in internally, but they didn't lick it off, it burned their skin," Marilynn Desmond said. "My response to that is they're trying to shift the blame from the producer to the user. If this had been my first dog, I might have fallen for that."
The authors of the study in The Veterinary Journal agree that misuse of pyrethroid products is often the cause of illnesses, although they also point out that accidental ingestion by mouth or during grooming is another common exposure route. "The best way to avoid serious problems is by educating pet owners to use products strictly according to label directions," the study says. "Veterinarians must advise clients using flea care products to read and follow label instructions completely before applying them on or around their pets." The rub here, some veterinarians say, is pyrethroid spot on treatments are over-the-counter products, easily purchased without consulting a veterinarian.
Michael Murphy, a veterinarian and toxicologist at the University of Minnesota, speaking for the American Veterinary Medical Association, said he rarely hears of pet reactions to spot on treatments, and when he does it's usually because a consumer applied a stronger dog product to a cat. But for some pet advocates, the misapplication explanation misses the point. The Humane Society of the United States has heard this reasoning before, but still recommends pet owners avoid over-the-counter spot on products and only use treatments recommended by veterinarians, according to Stephanie Shain, the organization's director of outreach. "With the number of complaints we get it seems like an extraordinarily high rate of problems," she said. "Even if it is owner error much of the time, something is not working the way it should be. I think at the very least there need to be much stronger warnings on those products cautioning pet owners about the dangers involved with using them."
Others express similar concerns. "Sometimes I wonder why it's still approved," said Mark Grossman, a co-owner and veterinarian of Roanoke Island Animal Clinic and a toxicology consultant for the Veterinary Information Network. "They can't get it out there without the EPA approving it. Apparently they say if they do enough tests, it's still OK. In real life though, I think we're seeing more problems than we should."
Paying the Bills
After Samantha Ribble's English bulldog, Bella, and pug, Chloe, developed oozing sores where she placed drops of Sergeant's Gold Squeeze on for Dogs, she asked Sergeant's to pay her veterinarian bill, $309. Without admitting any liability, Sergeant's agreed to pay the bill, on the condition that Ribble sign a release that read as follows: "I agree not to make any oral or written communication which disparages or has the effect of damaging the reputation of or otherwise working in any way to the detriment of Sergeant's. This Release shall inure the benefit of Sergeant's heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns and shall bind me and my heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns." In the same letter, Sergeant's notes that its products are closely regulated by the EPA and tested in "accordance with EPA rules and regulations in order to ensure that the products are safe."
This is true. The EPA approved the company's pyrethroid spot on treatments just as it has approved all spot on treatments, but the agency has a history of approving pet products in the past only to pull them from the market later. The EPA approved the use of chlorpyrifos products, cancelled for use on pets in 2001; diazinon products, cancelled for use on pets in 2001; and phosmet products, cancelled for use on pets by 2004. The products were approved, defended aggressively by the chemical industry, and then yanked off the market. They were largely replaced by pyrethroid products, which are generally thought to be less acutely toxic.
Even pyrethroid pet products, however, have been approved and then pulled. In 2000, the EPA received a rash of reports from cat owners concerning Hartz Mountain Corp.'s Advanced Care Once a Month Flea & Tick Drops for Cats, a spot on treatment containing the pyrethroid d-phenothrin. The agency received reports of cats losing their hair, salivating uncontrollably, experiencing tremors, and sometimes dying. Judy Van Wyk of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against Hartz in November 2001 on behalf of pet owners whose cats had reacted to Hartz cat drops. The complaint alleged that "Hartz has also known since at least March 2001 that adverse reactions in cats to the Drops is a common problem." The suit was voluntarily withdrawn in November 2002, which may indicate an out-of-court settlement, but neither Hartz nor Van Wyk would comment on the case.
Three years later, after the company and the agency experimented unsuccessfully with stronger warning labels, the EPA entered into negotiations with Hartz Mountain Corp. and the company agreed to stop selling the product.
"When we register these products, we feel they're safe," said Marion Johnson, branch chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration division.
Rice, chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticides registration branch, said the agency knows it has had problems with these products in the past. Still the EPA holds the position, as with all products registered by the agency, that pyrethroid-based spot on treatments are not harmful if consumers follow label instructions. The 25,000 reported incidents alone will not change this conclusion, Rice said. The EPA is investigating pyrethroid incidents, involving both humans and pets, and when it finishes this process -- the EPA does not have a target date yet for doing so -- it may make regulatory changes, but until then the agency stands by its conclusion. "Our decisions to register these products and compounds are done with significant data," said Marion Johnson, branch chief of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs registration division. "When we register these products, we feel they're safe."
So safe in fact that Johnson said the EPA does not expect any pets will have a sensitivity to spot on products leading to an illness; the incident reports, in Johnson's view, are not at all definitive. Manufacturers, for their part, do acknowledge the existence of sensitive cats and dogs. "There is a certain percentage of dogs out there that, just like with humans, will have an allergic reaction no matter what," Windrum, the Sergeant's spokeswoman, said. Less than 1 percent of sales result in an adverse reaction when the product is used as directed by the label, she said.
The EPA cannot make its own assessment because unlike the regulations directing the FDA's approval of human products, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act does not require pet products to undergo field trials prior to approval. So the agency can only require less extensive testing, often only on one breed of dog or cat. This makes it difficult to predict the effects on the broader population of users.
The EPA also considers the need consumers have to control fleas and ticks on their pets and the benefit provided by low-cost pyrethroid spot ons when making decisions about these products. The over-the-counter pyrethroid spot ons are typically half the price of Frontline and Advantage.
EPA scientists continue to monitor the safety of pet pyrethroids. In November, several EPA employees at the Office of Research and Development authored a piece in BMC Genomics, an online journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles, that found exposure to the pyrethroids permethrin and deltamethrin in young rats "could result in detrimental effects on neurological function later in life." The study found this was a possibility even using doses of permethrin that do not cause immediate, acute symptoms. The authors of the article suggested many other avenues of research -- including examining the effects of other pyrethroids on neurological function.
The EPA also hopes to improve the quality of incident reports through an online reporting system for veterinarians that began this fall. In addition, the agency is analyzing pet incidents to identify patterns that may lead to additional labeling or further regulatory action, and reviewing the process of approving pet products to see if changes are warranted.
"We need to make sound scientific decisions," Johnson said. "On the one hand we have the data that says this product might be safe and on the other we have incidents that say it might not be."
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wild Mustangs (Horses) Adoption Events Event in Texas Draws Attention to Issue, Including Help from the Wife of Dallas Oil Tycoon T. Boone Pickens
Very sad that once again, the wild horses will be subject to slaughter due to this short sided policy.
As you’ll read below, even people like Madeleine Pickens, the wife of Dallas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens is stepping up to help. She recently announced a plan to provide 1 million acres for a wild horse refuge. To learn more and get involved, see her website at http://madeleinepickens.com/
As stated below, “…[t]hrough the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, wild mustangs roam free on swaths of land set aside for them in 10 states.”
Sadly, and as a short sided decision, “…[g]overnment officials want to reduce the country's herd of wild mustangs from the current 33,000 to 27,000….”
From this reality alone, it is clear that many will need adoption.
Article:
Adoption events offer hope for wild mustangs, but clock is ticking
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-mustangs_23met.ART0.State.Edition1.4ed289c.html
12:00 AM CST on Friday, January 23, 2009
By LAURIE FOX / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
Laurie Fox is an Arlington-based freelance writer. E-mail her at laurie-fox@sbcglobal.net.
FORT WORTH – Smoke was more stubborn, more spooked than any of the other wild mustangs that Ken Schwab had broken.
[Click image for a larger version] ROBERT W. HART/Special Contributor
ROBERT W. HART/Special Contributor
Ken Schwab, who has been training Smoke for months, says you have to take a chance on the horses. 'They're worth it,' he said.
The spirited horse had run wild for three years before he was sent to a government overflow facility – a common fate for the tens of thousands of mustangs roaming the West. Trust in man was hard to come by.
"It's just like all of the wild mustangs out there – you have to take a chance on them and not give up," said Schwab, who finally mounted Smoke after a month of patient waiting and coaxing. "They're worth it."
Conservationists and animal rights activists agree. But the clock is ticking for mustangs as the government tries to reduce the expensive – and ecologically destructive – herds through holding facilities and possibly euthanasia.
So Schwab and Smoke will ride into the John Justin Arena at the Southwestern Exposition and Livestock Show in Fort Worth this weekend carrying the weight of a larger issue.
Mustang Magic highlights the power and versatility of the formerly wild mustangs. After months of working with the animals, 11 trainers will show off what they've been able to accomplish with them.
At the end of Saturday's event, the horses are offered to the public for adoption.
It is part of a broader effort to get the animals to a good home and call attention to the tens of thousands of wild mustangs that still need placement.
Through the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, wild mustangs roam free on swaths of land set aside for them in 10 states.
Government officials want to reduce the country's herd of wild mustangs from the current 33,000 to 27,000 for fear that the large numbers of horses will affect the delicate ecological balance on the land they still roam.
The overflow horses are sent to longer term holding areas where they also number over 30,000. Maintaining those herds is expensive, at least $27 million per year, government officials say, and the law does allow the animals to be euthanized if it's deemed necessary.
Their plight has touched many in the horse community from trainers such as Schwab, who operates from his home near Austin, to philanthropists such as Madeleine Pickens, the wife of Dallas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens.
Pickens has become a vocal advocate against cutting the overpopulated mustang herd, announcing a plan recently to provide 1 million acres for a wild horse refuge. She launched her own Web site about the issue.
Pickens said she wants to form a nonprofit organization to oversee the donated land and the horse population that resides in the overflow holding areas. She is shopping her idea around Washington, D.C.
"This is a labor of love," she said of her effort. "This is a kind, common-sense solution to what has become a difficult issue."
Another group, the Mustang Heritage Foundation, works to secure as many adoptions as possible.
The group seeks trainers to tame the animals through trade magazines and its Web site.
Public adoption events like the one coming to Fort Worth this weekend have proven successful around the country, said Patti Colbert, the executive director of the foundation northwest of Austin.
"People are really passionate about this issue," she said. "We want to show America how trainable these animals are."
Colbert called the overpopulation of mustangs "a large problem" that she said would take cooperation from everyone to solve.
She said the trainers are doing invaluable work with the animals, some of which have had little human contact.
"These horses are a white sheet of paper when you get them," she said.
Trainers say the process of teaching the horses to live among humans can be daunting.
It's also a bit heartbreaking.
The trainers' goal is to make sure the horses do well in their new homes. Even if they grow close to the animals while working with them, they must give them up.
"My job is to make sure that they better someone else's life," said trainer Lonnie Aragon of Colorado Springs. "They've already bettered mine."
Aragon learned how to work with the wild horses while he was in prison. He spent five of his 10 years while incarcerated with the mustangs.
"When I first started out with them, I figured I had nothing to lose," he said.
But he said earning an animal's trust changed him.
"You're taking a wild creature and making them your friend," Aragon said. "That did something to me inside. That transformation is so gratifying."
Aragon has trained several horses for adoption through the mustang foundation. He will ride a mustang called Chance in Fort Worth this weekend.
"They took a chance on me and I don't want to let them down," he said of the animals. "Today, I come into every situation and ask myself, 'How many steps will it take to do this right?' I don't just react anymore.
"They've changed the way I see the world."
Laurie Fox is an Arlington-based freelance writer. E-mail her at laurie-fox@sbcglobal.net.
As you’ll read below, even people like Madeleine Pickens, the wife of Dallas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens is stepping up to help. She recently announced a plan to provide 1 million acres for a wild horse refuge. To learn more and get involved, see her website at http://madeleinepickens.com/
As stated below, “…[t]hrough the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, wild mustangs roam free on swaths of land set aside for them in 10 states.”
Sadly, and as a short sided decision, “…[g]overnment officials want to reduce the country's herd of wild mustangs from the current 33,000 to 27,000….”
From this reality alone, it is clear that many will need adoption.
Article:
Adoption events offer hope for wild mustangs, but clock is ticking
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-mustangs_23met.ART0.State.Edition1.4ed289c.html
12:00 AM CST on Friday, January 23, 2009
By LAURIE FOX / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
Laurie Fox is an Arlington-based freelance writer. E-mail her at laurie-fox@sbcglobal.net.
FORT WORTH – Smoke was more stubborn, more spooked than any of the other wild mustangs that Ken Schwab had broken.
[Click image for a larger version] ROBERT W. HART/Special Contributor
ROBERT W. HART/Special Contributor
Ken Schwab, who has been training Smoke for months, says you have to take a chance on the horses. 'They're worth it,' he said.
The spirited horse had run wild for three years before he was sent to a government overflow facility – a common fate for the tens of thousands of mustangs roaming the West. Trust in man was hard to come by.
"It's just like all of the wild mustangs out there – you have to take a chance on them and not give up," said Schwab, who finally mounted Smoke after a month of patient waiting and coaxing. "They're worth it."
Conservationists and animal rights activists agree. But the clock is ticking for mustangs as the government tries to reduce the expensive – and ecologically destructive – herds through holding facilities and possibly euthanasia.
So Schwab and Smoke will ride into the John Justin Arena at the Southwestern Exposition and Livestock Show in Fort Worth this weekend carrying the weight of a larger issue.
Mustang Magic highlights the power and versatility of the formerly wild mustangs. After months of working with the animals, 11 trainers will show off what they've been able to accomplish with them.
At the end of Saturday's event, the horses are offered to the public for adoption.
It is part of a broader effort to get the animals to a good home and call attention to the tens of thousands of wild mustangs that still need placement.
Through the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, wild mustangs roam free on swaths of land set aside for them in 10 states.
Government officials want to reduce the country's herd of wild mustangs from the current 33,000 to 27,000 for fear that the large numbers of horses will affect the delicate ecological balance on the land they still roam.
The overflow horses are sent to longer term holding areas where they also number over 30,000. Maintaining those herds is expensive, at least $27 million per year, government officials say, and the law does allow the animals to be euthanized if it's deemed necessary.
Their plight has touched many in the horse community from trainers such as Schwab, who operates from his home near Austin, to philanthropists such as Madeleine Pickens, the wife of Dallas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens.
Pickens has become a vocal advocate against cutting the overpopulated mustang herd, announcing a plan recently to provide 1 million acres for a wild horse refuge. She launched her own Web site about the issue.
Pickens said she wants to form a nonprofit organization to oversee the donated land and the horse population that resides in the overflow holding areas. She is shopping her idea around Washington, D.C.
"This is a labor of love," she said of her effort. "This is a kind, common-sense solution to what has become a difficult issue."
Another group, the Mustang Heritage Foundation, works to secure as many adoptions as possible.
The group seeks trainers to tame the animals through trade magazines and its Web site.
Public adoption events like the one coming to Fort Worth this weekend have proven successful around the country, said Patti Colbert, the executive director of the foundation northwest of Austin.
"People are really passionate about this issue," she said. "We want to show America how trainable these animals are."
Colbert called the overpopulation of mustangs "a large problem" that she said would take cooperation from everyone to solve.
She said the trainers are doing invaluable work with the animals, some of which have had little human contact.
"These horses are a white sheet of paper when you get them," she said.
Trainers say the process of teaching the horses to live among humans can be daunting.
It's also a bit heartbreaking.
The trainers' goal is to make sure the horses do well in their new homes. Even if they grow close to the animals while working with them, they must give them up.
"My job is to make sure that they better someone else's life," said trainer Lonnie Aragon of Colorado Springs. "They've already bettered mine."
Aragon learned how to work with the wild horses while he was in prison. He spent five of his 10 years while incarcerated with the mustangs.
"When I first started out with them, I figured I had nothing to lose," he said.
But he said earning an animal's trust changed him.
"You're taking a wild creature and making them your friend," Aragon said. "That did something to me inside. That transformation is so gratifying."
Aragon has trained several horses for adoption through the mustang foundation. He will ride a mustang called Chance in Fort Worth this weekend.
"They took a chance on me and I don't want to let them down," he said of the animals. "Today, I come into every situation and ask myself, 'How many steps will it take to do this right?' I don't just react anymore.
"They've changed the way I see the world."
Laurie Fox is an Arlington-based freelance writer. E-mail her at laurie-fox@sbcglobal.net.
Tool Creation and Use Not Unique to Humans: Many Non-Human Animals Also Intelligent Enough to Employ Tools to Successfully Complete Tasks
A great article that dispels the myth that tool use is unique to the human species. As you’ll read below (and see via photos), many species have used critical thinking and problem solving to create tools out of objects in their evironment in order to successfully complete tasks. Another word for this – intelligence.
Article:
Clever Critters: 8 Best Non-Human Tool Users
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/animaltools.html
By Brandon Keim EmailJanuary 16, 2009 | 5:45:22 PMCategories: Animals
Multitool
Tool use was once thought to distinguish humans from animal — until, that is, so many animals proved able to use them.
Granted, the fine folks at Leatherman aren't about to be undercut by cheap chimpanzee-manufactured multitools. But it's hard not to feel a species-level déjà vu when seeing a gorilla using a walking stick or capuchin monkey thoughtfully selecting an ideal nut-cracking stone.
Below is a compilation of some of the most interesting animal tool use yet observed. Much more likely remains to be found: until Jane Goodall watched chimpanzees fishing for termites with sticks, scientists had been reluctant to credit animals with such sophisticated behavior — perhaps because, as Charles Darwin noted, “Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.”
Darwin himself was quite intrigued by animal tool use, suggesting that it allowed them to overcome biological shortcomings. In On the Origin of Species, he noted that elephants snap off tree branches to swat away flies; in honor of Darwin's interest, elephants are the first on our list of animal tool use.
Elephant
Elephant canteens. Cute YouTube videos of elephant painters show their amazing dexterity, but even more impressive is this peculiar habit: after digging a water hole, elephants will strip bark from a tree, chew it into a ball, then use it to fill the hole. Once the top has been covered with sand, the elephant has an evaporation-resistant canteen.
Image: Flickr/Paul Shaffner
Mole rat masks. The naked mole rat's powerful, protruding teeth are great for burrowing — but digging with their mouths makes it easy to inhale dirt. To keep their lungs clear, the mole rats have been observed placing wood shavings behind the teeth but in front of their lips — a simple face mask. (As an aside, the naked mole rat's better-known cousin has been taught to use a raking device in captivity. A word to raking rat trainers: keep an eye on them! New York City is bad enough without tool-using rodents.)
Video: YouTube/Bh41
Egyptian vulture hammers. Some say that seagulls who crack open shellfish by dropping them onto rocks are using tools, but that's generally dismissed on a technicality: The seagulls aren't actually manipulating their environment. No such ambiguity surrounds Egyptian vultures, who use rocks to break open ostrich eggs.
Video: YouTube/Gary9209
Burrowingowl2_2
Burrowing owl bait. In order to attract its favorite beetle prey, burrowing owls collect mammal dung, then spread it around the entrance to their homes. As with many animal tool behaviors, it's not clear whether the owls are acting out an instinctive sequence of actions, or consciously deciding to collect the dung. Either way, though, those dung balls are tools.
Image: Ronald G. Wolff / Nature
Woodpecker finch, green jay and New Caledonian crow bug-fishing sticks. All these birds use twigs to forage for insects, but the New Caledonian crow is famed for its cleverness, seen here in a captive bird's fashioning of a food-fetching hook from straight wire.
Video: YouTube/Kivirtual
Chimpanzee clubs. Since Jane Goodall's pioneering observations, chimpanzees have been observed using sticks to spear bush babies, smashing nuts open with stones (which, apparently, they've done for thousands of years) and making straw toothpicks. But their most striking tool may be the club.
Video: YouTube/Everything is Pointless
Gorillawalking
Gorilla walking sticks. Any hiker knows the value of a good walking stick — and so, apparently, do gorillas. In a swampy forest clearing in the northern Congo, this gorilla used a stick to test the depth of a pool of water, and then to keep its balance as it walked across.
Image: Wildlife Conservation Society/PLoS Biology
Dolhinsponge
Dolphin fishing sponges. An extended family of Indian bottlenose dolphins in Shark Bay, Australia are the first known marine mammal to use tools: sponges with which they stir ocean-bottom sand, uncovering and disorienting prey. “It’s hard to get inside their heads because their brains are constructed differently and it’s very hard to analyze their language, but they do seem very intelligent,” said Georgetown University marine biologist Janet Mann to the Times.
Let's just hope dolphins don't develop opposable thumbs.
Article:
Clever Critters: 8 Best Non-Human Tool Users
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/animaltools.html
By Brandon Keim EmailJanuary 16, 2009 | 5:45:22 PMCategories: Animals
Multitool
Tool use was once thought to distinguish humans from animal — until, that is, so many animals proved able to use them.
Granted, the fine folks at Leatherman aren't about to be undercut by cheap chimpanzee-manufactured multitools. But it's hard not to feel a species-level déjà vu when seeing a gorilla using a walking stick or capuchin monkey thoughtfully selecting an ideal nut-cracking stone.
Below is a compilation of some of the most interesting animal tool use yet observed. Much more likely remains to be found: until Jane Goodall watched chimpanzees fishing for termites with sticks, scientists had been reluctant to credit animals with such sophisticated behavior — perhaps because, as Charles Darwin noted, “Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.”
Darwin himself was quite intrigued by animal tool use, suggesting that it allowed them to overcome biological shortcomings. In On the Origin of Species, he noted that elephants snap off tree branches to swat away flies; in honor of Darwin's interest, elephants are the first on our list of animal tool use.
Elephant
Elephant canteens. Cute YouTube videos of elephant painters show their amazing dexterity, but even more impressive is this peculiar habit: after digging a water hole, elephants will strip bark from a tree, chew it into a ball, then use it to fill the hole. Once the top has been covered with sand, the elephant has an evaporation-resistant canteen.
Image: Flickr/Paul Shaffner
Mole rat masks. The naked mole rat's powerful, protruding teeth are great for burrowing — but digging with their mouths makes it easy to inhale dirt. To keep their lungs clear, the mole rats have been observed placing wood shavings behind the teeth but in front of their lips — a simple face mask. (As an aside, the naked mole rat's better-known cousin has been taught to use a raking device in captivity. A word to raking rat trainers: keep an eye on them! New York City is bad enough without tool-using rodents.)
Video: YouTube/Bh41
Egyptian vulture hammers. Some say that seagulls who crack open shellfish by dropping them onto rocks are using tools, but that's generally dismissed on a technicality: The seagulls aren't actually manipulating their environment. No such ambiguity surrounds Egyptian vultures, who use rocks to break open ostrich eggs.
Video: YouTube/Gary9209
Burrowingowl2_2
Burrowing owl bait. In order to attract its favorite beetle prey, burrowing owls collect mammal dung, then spread it around the entrance to their homes. As with many animal tool behaviors, it's not clear whether the owls are acting out an instinctive sequence of actions, or consciously deciding to collect the dung. Either way, though, those dung balls are tools.
Image: Ronald G. Wolff / Nature
Woodpecker finch, green jay and New Caledonian crow bug-fishing sticks. All these birds use twigs to forage for insects, but the New Caledonian crow is famed for its cleverness, seen here in a captive bird's fashioning of a food-fetching hook from straight wire.
Video: YouTube/Kivirtual
Chimpanzee clubs. Since Jane Goodall's pioneering observations, chimpanzees have been observed using sticks to spear bush babies, smashing nuts open with stones (which, apparently, they've done for thousands of years) and making straw toothpicks. But their most striking tool may be the club.
Video: YouTube/Everything is Pointless
Gorillawalking
Gorilla walking sticks. Any hiker knows the value of a good walking stick — and so, apparently, do gorillas. In a swampy forest clearing in the northern Congo, this gorilla used a stick to test the depth of a pool of water, and then to keep its balance as it walked across.
Image: Wildlife Conservation Society/PLoS Biology
Dolhinsponge
Dolphin fishing sponges. An extended family of Indian bottlenose dolphins in Shark Bay, Australia are the first known marine mammal to use tools: sponges with which they stir ocean-bottom sand, uncovering and disorienting prey. “It’s hard to get inside their heads because their brains are constructed differently and it’s very hard to analyze their language, but they do seem very intelligent,” said Georgetown University marine biologist Janet Mann to the Times.
Let's just hope dolphins don't develop opposable thumbs.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Proggy Awards Winners: See the Awards, by Category, for the Most Innovative and Animal-Friendly Achievements, Products and Services
Again, a great slate of winners. For those looking to know where to find cruelty free products, most vegan or vegetarian, and services, see these listings.
You can view the winners by category at:
http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/6th/?c=p6apgb08#winnerDetails
As states at the site,
“Each year, PETA's Proggy Awards recognize companies, people, and products for innovative and animal-friendly achievements. With categories ranging from entertainment to science, there's no doubt that the well-being of animals is a growing concern in almost every field. Our panel of judges has made its choices for this year's awards, and we are proud to announce the results. Please give a round of applause to the following Proggy Award winners for their initiative, creativity, passion, and desire to make a difference!”
You can view the winners by category at:
http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/6th/?c=p6apgb08#winnerDetails
You can view the winners by category at:
http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/6th/?c=p6apgb08#winnerDetails
As states at the site,
“Each year, PETA's Proggy Awards recognize companies, people, and products for innovative and animal-friendly achievements. With categories ranging from entertainment to science, there's no doubt that the well-being of animals is a growing concern in almost every field. Our panel of judges has made its choices for this year's awards, and we are proud to announce the results. Please give a round of applause to the following Proggy Award winners for their initiative, creativity, passion, and desire to make a difference!”
You can view the winners by category at:
http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/6th/?c=p6apgb08#winnerDetails
In the First Extremely Disturbing Story of 2009, Elephants will be Slaughtered in Zimbabwe to Feed Soldiers
It’s obvious the disgusting reality of this issue. To think that they actually believe that killing elephants is the solution to this issue really shows that they simply WANT to eat elephants.
To look to no other options will likely leave the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) and the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority in the running for the cruelest organizations of 2009, and for the most ignorant and short sided thinking groups of 2009.
Article:
‘Elephants Slaughtered To Feed Hungry Soldiers’
http://www.thezimbabweindependent.com/local/21772-elephants-slaughtered-to-feed-hungry-soldiers.html
Thursday, 08 January 2009 20:18
IN a move likely to appal conservationists the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) and the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority have reportedly struck a deal that has resulted in the authority slaughtering elephants to feed soldiers at army barracks across the country.
Sources in the army told the Zimbabwe Independent that there were acute food shortages in the barracks and the supply of elephant meat was a big relief.
Parks Authority director-general Morris Mutsambiwa yesterday said there was no such a deal with the army.
However, military sources insisted the existence of the pact and disclosed that shortages of food rations in the barracks started early last year after the Ministry of Defence exhausted its budgetary allocation due to the harsh economic environment.
Secretary for Defence Trust Maphosa last year admitted before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence and Home Affairs that the government was fortunate that none of the soldiers had so far dared to take it to court for failing to comply with the statutes on food requirements.
“For the better part of last year army canteens have been preparing the staple sadza only and soldiers have been bringing their own relish,” one of the military sources said. “Although the state has a statutory obligation to provide soldiers stipulated amounts of kilojoules and calories per every meal, the government has taken advantage of their ignorance and docility to renege on its responsibility.”
The sources said most barracks started taking delivery of the elephant meat last week.
“People started eating the meat of elephants last week,” said a female soldier from 2 Brigade in Cranborne.
In a written response to questions from the Independent, Parks spokesperson Olivia Mufute said: “Dr Morris Mutsambiwa said there is no such agreement that exists between the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and the Zimbabwe National Army.”
Army director for public relations Simon Tsatsi professed ignorance of the matter before requesting written questions.
“I am sorry I am not aware of that, please put your questions in writing and fax them to our offices,” Tsatsi said.
The government is desperate to reduce the population of elephants in the country which it claims has far exceeded the carrying capacity of its national parks.
Pressure from animal rights groups has, however, prevented it from wholesale killing of the animals while it cannot afford the other control options that include translocation to countries with smaller populations and contraception.
While control and management of the animals is giving the Zimbabwe government serious headaches, in other parts of the world they have become an endangered species which has to be protected under the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna.
To look to no other options will likely leave the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) and the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority in the running for the cruelest organizations of 2009, and for the most ignorant and short sided thinking groups of 2009.
Article:
‘Elephants Slaughtered To Feed Hungry Soldiers’
http://www.thezimbabweindependent.com/local/21772-elephants-slaughtered-to-feed-hungry-soldiers.html
Thursday, 08 January 2009 20:18
IN a move likely to appal conservationists the Zimbabwe Defence Forces (ZDF) and the Parks and Wildlife Management Authority have reportedly struck a deal that has resulted in the authority slaughtering elephants to feed soldiers at army barracks across the country.
Sources in the army told the Zimbabwe Independent that there were acute food shortages in the barracks and the supply of elephant meat was a big relief.
Parks Authority director-general Morris Mutsambiwa yesterday said there was no such a deal with the army.
However, military sources insisted the existence of the pact and disclosed that shortages of food rations in the barracks started early last year after the Ministry of Defence exhausted its budgetary allocation due to the harsh economic environment.
Secretary for Defence Trust Maphosa last year admitted before the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Defence and Home Affairs that the government was fortunate that none of the soldiers had so far dared to take it to court for failing to comply with the statutes on food requirements.
“For the better part of last year army canteens have been preparing the staple sadza only and soldiers have been bringing their own relish,” one of the military sources said. “Although the state has a statutory obligation to provide soldiers stipulated amounts of kilojoules and calories per every meal, the government has taken advantage of their ignorance and docility to renege on its responsibility.”
The sources said most barracks started taking delivery of the elephant meat last week.
“People started eating the meat of elephants last week,” said a female soldier from 2 Brigade in Cranborne.
In a written response to questions from the Independent, Parks spokesperson Olivia Mufute said: “Dr Morris Mutsambiwa said there is no such agreement that exists between the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority and the Zimbabwe National Army.”
Army director for public relations Simon Tsatsi professed ignorance of the matter before requesting written questions.
“I am sorry I am not aware of that, please put your questions in writing and fax them to our offices,” Tsatsi said.
The government is desperate to reduce the population of elephants in the country which it claims has far exceeded the carrying capacity of its national parks.
Pressure from animal rights groups has, however, prevented it from wholesale killing of the animals while it cannot afford the other control options that include translocation to countries with smaller populations and contraception.
While control and management of the animals is giving the Zimbabwe government serious headaches, in other parts of the world they have become an endangered species which has to be protected under the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna.
In Tasmania, Amendments Made to the Animal Welfare Act in Regard to Rodeos Begin in 2009
Looks like Tasmania is years ahead of the world in addressing animal cruelty issues in rodeos.
The amendments made include, “a ban on the riding of sheep and livestock and the introduction of penalties of up to $5,000 for animal mistreatment…[and] having a vet surgeon on hand so they can attend to animals that are either unfit to participate in the rodeo, or if they're injured during the events that they can be attended to promptly.”
Let’s see if other countries finally get that rational changes can be made in relation to animal cruelty and the rodeo.
Article:
Animal rights activists welcome new rodeo laws
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/08/2461502.htm
Posted Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:09am AEDT
The RSPCA in Tasmania hopes new laws regulating rodeos will see a reduction in injuries and mistreatment of animals.
Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act relating to rodeos will come into effect for this year's season.
The changes include a ban on the riding of sheep and livestock and the introduction of penalties of up to $5,000 for animal mistreatment.
The head of the RSPCA in Tasmania, Greg Treddinnick also welcomes the new requirement for an on-site vet.
"One of the most important things is having a vet surgeon on hand so they can attend to animals that are either unfit to participate in the rodeo, or if they're injured during the events that they can be attended to promptly," he said.
The amendments made include, “a ban on the riding of sheep and livestock and the introduction of penalties of up to $5,000 for animal mistreatment…[and] having a vet surgeon on hand so they can attend to animals that are either unfit to participate in the rodeo, or if they're injured during the events that they can be attended to promptly.”
Let’s see if other countries finally get that rational changes can be made in relation to animal cruelty and the rodeo.
Article:
Animal rights activists welcome new rodeo laws
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/08/2461502.htm
Posted Thu Jan 8, 2009 11:09am AEDT
The RSPCA in Tasmania hopes new laws regulating rodeos will see a reduction in injuries and mistreatment of animals.
Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act relating to rodeos will come into effect for this year's season.
The changes include a ban on the riding of sheep and livestock and the introduction of penalties of up to $5,000 for animal mistreatment.
The head of the RSPCA in Tasmania, Greg Treddinnick also welcomes the new requirement for an on-site vet.
"One of the most important things is having a vet surgeon on hand so they can attend to animals that are either unfit to participate in the rodeo, or if they're injured during the events that they can be attended to promptly," he said.
Lionhead Studio’s Video Game, Fable II Earns 2008's "Most Animal-Friendly Video Game"
I don’t actually game, so I haven’t played this one. But, it seems fair to have a animal welfare-related, vegetarian-friendly game on the market.
As stated by the writing below, “….characters that maintain a vegetarian diet in Fable II are given "purity" points, which help to make the in-game avatar appear more attractive and healthy. Eating large quantities of meat has the opposite effect, and contributes to the character taking on a more demonic form.”
Article:
PETA Names Fable II 2008's 'Most Animal-Friendly Game'
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21764
PETA Names Fable II 2008's 'Most Animal-Friendly Game' Animal rights group PETA calls Lionhead Studio’s Fable II 2008's "most animal-friendly video game", due to the rewards the game offers for maintaining a vegetarian lifestyle.
As part of the group’s annual awards -- which also include other entertainment media, personal care products, foods and clothing -– the Xbox 360 exclusive was described as a "vegetarian’s dream come true".
As the PETA website points out, characters that maintain a vegetarian diet in Fable II are given "purity" points, which help to make the in-game avatar appear more attractive and healthy. Eating large quantities of meat has the opposite effect, and contributes to the character taking on a more demonic form.
PETA describes the game as "an effective tool that teaches gamers the real-life benefits of a vegetarian diet". No mention is made of the in-game canine companion, which became a key selling point of the game in many pre-release previews.
The controversial rights group has recently taken increasing notice of the video games business, prompting Sega to pull an advert for Samba de Amigo on the Wii because it featured a trained chimpanzee. The group also launched a critical parody of Taito’s Cooking Mama, forcing North American publisher Majesco to defend the franchise.
As stated by the writing below, “….characters that maintain a vegetarian diet in Fable II are given "purity" points, which help to make the in-game avatar appear more attractive and healthy. Eating large quantities of meat has the opposite effect, and contributes to the character taking on a more demonic form.”
Article:
PETA Names Fable II 2008's 'Most Animal-Friendly Game'
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21764
PETA Names Fable II 2008's 'Most Animal-Friendly Game' Animal rights group PETA calls Lionhead Studio’s Fable II 2008's "most animal-friendly video game", due to the rewards the game offers for maintaining a vegetarian lifestyle.
As part of the group’s annual awards -- which also include other entertainment media, personal care products, foods and clothing -– the Xbox 360 exclusive was described as a "vegetarian’s dream come true".
As the PETA website points out, characters that maintain a vegetarian diet in Fable II are given "purity" points, which help to make the in-game avatar appear more attractive and healthy. Eating large quantities of meat has the opposite effect, and contributes to the character taking on a more demonic form.
PETA describes the game as "an effective tool that teaches gamers the real-life benefits of a vegetarian diet". No mention is made of the in-game canine companion, which became a key selling point of the game in many pre-release previews.
The controversial rights group has recently taken increasing notice of the video games business, prompting Sega to pull an advert for Samba de Amigo on the Wii because it featured a trained chimpanzee. The group also launched a critical parody of Taito’s Cooking Mama, forcing North American publisher Majesco to defend the franchise.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Do Vaccines, or Immunization Shots, Such as Rabies, Cause Cancer and/or Illness and Eventual Death to Companion Animals such as Dogs or Cats?
I wanted to post this email I received just recently. This is an issue I’ve always wondered about, as it seems that most companion animals die from cancer. I’ve heard it speculated that immunization shots, be it rabies or others, cause sarcomas, that lead to cancer. If anyone would like to comment, feel free. I’d like to see consensus one way or the other on this issue by the veterinarian community soon.
Here is the email:
To Whom It May Concern
I want to notify you all that I have lost two perfectly healthy cats from rabies immunization shots. One was 8 years old and the other was 12 years old. They both got cancer and died within months of having been administered the feline rabies vaccines and feline leukemia vaccine.
The laws are forcing people to over immunize their pets and don't offer titer tests. Instead the veterinarians are just giving shots because it is easier and they make more money.
This is cruel and inhumane. It causes the animals to get sick requiring the constant need to go to a veterinarian. When I asked a vet about these vaccines, they don't want to discuss it because they are forced to enforce these lethal injections on people animals by law.
Is there anything you can do to help change the law about giving repeatedly these unnecessary vaccines which cause illness, harm, cancer and death?
Would you do this to your pet? If the answer is no, then please represent this issue at your next convention.
Thank you very much,
(Name blocked out)
Here is the email:
To Whom It May Concern
I want to notify you all that I have lost two perfectly healthy cats from rabies immunization shots. One was 8 years old and the other was 12 years old. They both got cancer and died within months of having been administered the feline rabies vaccines and feline leukemia vaccine.
The laws are forcing people to over immunize their pets and don't offer titer tests. Instead the veterinarians are just giving shots because it is easier and they make more money.
This is cruel and inhumane. It causes the animals to get sick requiring the constant need to go to a veterinarian. When I asked a vet about these vaccines, they don't want to discuss it because they are forced to enforce these lethal injections on people animals by law.
Is there anything you can do to help change the law about giving repeatedly these unnecessary vaccines which cause illness, harm, cancer and death?
Would you do this to your pet? If the answer is no, then please represent this issue at your next convention.
Thank you very much,
(Name blocked out)
Monday, December 22, 2008
Tim Gunn, from Project Runway, Narrates Video which Exposes Horrible Cruelty Endured by Rabbits when Killed for their Fur in Chinese Fur Farms
To see the full video narrated by Tim Gunn, with proof of the pain rabbits endure when killing them for their fur, see http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/tim_gunn I encourage all of you to view it. You will also find a petition to sign at the page.
As you probably know, China, the cruelest country on Earth, has no laws that prevent animal cruelty.
I commend Tim Gunn for speaking the truth in regard to fur. I had no idea he was so active in exposing the cruelty behind fur.
Here are just a couple actions he’s taken to educate on the realty of the cruelty of fur:
“When he was the chair of the Department of Fashion Design at Parsons School of Design, Gunn started a program allowing PETA representatives to give presentations to students so that they could see for themselves what happens to animals who are tortured and killed for their fur. When Gunn became the chief creative officer at Liz Claiborne Inc., he invited PETA to show video footage depicting how animals are treated by the fashion industry worldwide and to present the many viable alternatives to animal fur.”
I’ve listed a small description of what happens to rabbits when they are killed for their fur below.
To see the full video narrated by Tim Gunn, with proof of the pain rabbits endure when killing them for their fur, see http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/tim_gunn I encourage all of you to view it.
“Rabbits on these farms spend their entire lives in small, filth-encrusted cages. The ammonia from urine-soaked floors burns their eyes and lungs and many rabbits die from respiratory diseases—all considered just a cost of doing business. One Chinese farm keeps 20,000 caged rabbits and kills as many as 2,000 of them every day.
When the rabbits are still babies—4 or 5 months old—they are killed. Workers stuff the terrified animals into flimsy wire crates, which they bump and drag across the floor. Some rabbits suffer broken bones and have limbs scraped raw when their legs slip through the wire.
The rabbits are yanked out of the crates by their ears, shackled and hung upside-down by their hind legs, shocked with electric stun guns and decapitated. In video footage shot at one farm, some of the rabbits scream—yes, scream—during slaughter. One investigator saw a rabbit lose control of her bowels after being shocked repeatedly.”
Article:
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/tim_gunn
"Project Runway's" Tim Gunn Exposes Fashion Cruelty in New PETA Video
Want to have a killer look without killing animals? Tim Gunn will help you "make it work"! Long before the success of Project Runway and Tim Gunn's Guide to Style made him a household name, Gunn was a friend of PETA and animals. His appeal has not fallen on deaf ears, as Donna Karan announced days later that her fall 2009 lines will be fur-free and that she has "no plans" to use fur in the future.
When he was the chair of the Department of Fashion Design at Parsons School of Design, Gunn started a program allowing PETA representatives to give presentations to students so that they could see for themselves what happens to animals who are tortured and killed for their fur. When Gunn became the chief creative officer at Liz Claiborne Inc., he invited PETA to show video footage depicting how animals are treated by the fashion industry worldwide and to present the many viable alternatives to animal fur.
Now Gunn is speaking up for animals again! But this time, Gunn wants you, the consumer, to know what animals endure in the name of fashion so that you can make informed decisions before buying clothing and accessories made from fur, wool, and leather. Gunn has become the latest celebrity to lend his voice to animals by narrating PETA's new skins video which he sent with a personal appeal to Donna Karan and Giorgio Armani, who both use rabbit fur in their collections. His appeal has not fallen on deaf ears, as Donna Karan announced days later that her fall 2009 lines will be fur-free and that she has "no plans" to use fur in the future.
As you probably know, China, the cruelest country on Earth, has no laws that prevent animal cruelty.
I commend Tim Gunn for speaking the truth in regard to fur. I had no idea he was so active in exposing the cruelty behind fur.
Here are just a couple actions he’s taken to educate on the realty of the cruelty of fur:
“When he was the chair of the Department of Fashion Design at Parsons School of Design, Gunn started a program allowing PETA representatives to give presentations to students so that they could see for themselves what happens to animals who are tortured and killed for their fur. When Gunn became the chief creative officer at Liz Claiborne Inc., he invited PETA to show video footage depicting how animals are treated by the fashion industry worldwide and to present the many viable alternatives to animal fur.”
I’ve listed a small description of what happens to rabbits when they are killed for their fur below.
To see the full video narrated by Tim Gunn, with proof of the pain rabbits endure when killing them for their fur, see http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/tim_gunn I encourage all of you to view it.
“Rabbits on these farms spend their entire lives in small, filth-encrusted cages. The ammonia from urine-soaked floors burns their eyes and lungs and many rabbits die from respiratory diseases—all considered just a cost of doing business. One Chinese farm keeps 20,000 caged rabbits and kills as many as 2,000 of them every day.
When the rabbits are still babies—4 or 5 months old—they are killed. Workers stuff the terrified animals into flimsy wire crates, which they bump and drag across the floor. Some rabbits suffer broken bones and have limbs scraped raw when their legs slip through the wire.
The rabbits are yanked out of the crates by their ears, shackled and hung upside-down by their hind legs, shocked with electric stun guns and decapitated. In video footage shot at one farm, some of the rabbits scream—yes, scream—during slaughter. One investigator saw a rabbit lose control of her bowels after being shocked repeatedly.”
Article:
http://getactive.peta.org/campaign/tim_gunn
"Project Runway's" Tim Gunn Exposes Fashion Cruelty in New PETA Video
Want to have a killer look without killing animals? Tim Gunn will help you "make it work"! Long before the success of Project Runway and Tim Gunn's Guide to Style made him a household name, Gunn was a friend of PETA and animals. His appeal has not fallen on deaf ears, as Donna Karan announced days later that her fall 2009 lines will be fur-free and that she has "no plans" to use fur in the future.
When he was the chair of the Department of Fashion Design at Parsons School of Design, Gunn started a program allowing PETA representatives to give presentations to students so that they could see for themselves what happens to animals who are tortured and killed for their fur. When Gunn became the chief creative officer at Liz Claiborne Inc., he invited PETA to show video footage depicting how animals are treated by the fashion industry worldwide and to present the many viable alternatives to animal fur.
Now Gunn is speaking up for animals again! But this time, Gunn wants you, the consumer, to know what animals endure in the name of fashion so that you can make informed decisions before buying clothing and accessories made from fur, wool, and leather. Gunn has become the latest celebrity to lend his voice to animals by narrating PETA's new skins video which he sent with a personal appeal to Donna Karan and Giorgio Armani, who both use rabbit fur in their collections. His appeal has not fallen on deaf ears, as Donna Karan announced days later that her fall 2009 lines will be fur-free and that she has "no plans" to use fur in the future.
Animal Rights Passages from the Qur’an: Writer States that Allah Clear in Commitment to the Proper Treatment of Non-Human Animals
So glad to see someone pull out applicable passages to animal rights from the Qur’an. Please read below for the applicable writings.
Article:
Animal rights in Islam
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008122224800
ANIMALS, like humans, are the creation of Allah. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not only sent as a mercy to mankind but also to all living creatures.
“And We have sent you (O Muhammad, peace be upon him) not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).” (Qur’an, 21:107)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “If any Muslim plants any plant and a human being or an animal eats of it, he will be rewarded as if he had given that much in charity.” – (Al-Bukhari)
He (peace be upon him) also said that a thirsty man came across a well, got down into it, drank (its water) and then came out. When he came out, he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. The man thought: “This dog is suffering from the same state of thirst as I was.” So he went down the well (again) and filled his shoe (with water) and brought it back for the dog. Allah appreciated that deed and forgave him.
The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals?” He said, “(Yes) There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” – (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
The Prophet cursed those who cut the limbs or other parts of an animal while it was still alive. – (Al-Bukhari)
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth.” – (Al-Bukhari)
Article:
Animal rights in Islam
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008122224800
ANIMALS, like humans, are the creation of Allah. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not only sent as a mercy to mankind but also to all living creatures.
“And We have sent you (O Muhammad, peace be upon him) not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists).” (Qur’an, 21:107)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “If any Muslim plants any plant and a human being or an animal eats of it, he will be rewarded as if he had given that much in charity.” – (Al-Bukhari)
He (peace be upon him) also said that a thirsty man came across a well, got down into it, drank (its water) and then came out. When he came out, he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. The man thought: “This dog is suffering from the same state of thirst as I was.” So he went down the well (again) and filled his shoe (with water) and brought it back for the dog. Allah appreciated that deed and forgave him.
The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals?” He said, “(Yes) There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” – (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
The Prophet cursed those who cut the limbs or other parts of an animal while it was still alive. – (Al-Bukhari)
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth.” – (Al-Bukhari)
Simple Web Form Allows You to End Animal Use in Military Medical Training
Yep, sadly the government still uses live animals in training.
You can find out more and learn how to express your distaste of vivisection by the military at https://secure2.convio.net/pcrm/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=215&AddInterest=1781&JServSessionIdr006=fs33kyabu1.app2b
You can find out more and learn how to express your distaste of vivisection by the military at https://secure2.convio.net/pcrm/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=215&AddInterest=1781&JServSessionIdr006=fs33kyabu1.app2b
After Shocking Investigation of Horrors Behind Petland, this Holiday Season, the HSUS and GEARI Remind You to Pick a Dog or Cat From a Shelter
The HSUS and GEARI Remind You to Pick a Dog or Cat From a Shelter and Not from a Pet Store that is Supplied by Breeders and Puppy Mills
Here’s a great page on the horrors of puppy mills. Remember, breeders create puppy mills, which in turn feed the pet stores. According to eh investigation carried out by the HSUS regarding Petland, they are egregious supporters of animal cruelty and puppy mills.
Article:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/get_the_facts_on_puppy_mills/
The Humane Society of the United States reveals the results of a shocking investigation revealing that pet store chain Petland Incorporated is the nation's largest retail supporter of puppy mills. Watch our video and then take action.
Here’s a great page on the horrors of puppy mills. Remember, breeders create puppy mills, which in turn feed the pet stores. According to eh investigation carried out by the HSUS regarding Petland, they are egregious supporters of animal cruelty and puppy mills.
Article:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/get_the_facts_on_puppy_mills/
The Humane Society of the United States reveals the results of a shocking investigation revealing that pet store chain Petland Incorporated is the nation's largest retail supporter of puppy mills. Watch our video and then take action.
Loud Noises in Oceans by Ships, Sonar, and Oil and Gas Exploration Causing Harm to Range of Sea Species, Including Whales, Dolphins and Sea Turtles
As stated in the article below, this is a serious issues, as “Increased noise levels have not only been scaring animals and shortening the distance over which they can communicate with each other, but some loud noises may directly cause tissue damage while others can spur animals into surfacing too quickly, leading to injuries similar to the bends.”
Article:
What's All the Ruckus?
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/12/04/ludnss/index.html?source=rss#null
Human-caused noises in oceans messing with wildlife, experts say
Loud noises in the world's oceans, caused by ships, powerful sonar, and oil and gas exploration, are negatively affecting a range of sea critters, including whales, dolphins, sea turtles, and others, according to a report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Increased noise levels have not only been scaring animals and shortening the distance over which they can communicate with each other, but some loud noises may directly cause tissue damage while others can spur animals into surfacing too quickly, leading to injuries similar to the bends.
Article:
What's All the Ruckus?
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/12/04/ludnss/index.html?source=rss#null
Human-caused noises in oceans messing with wildlife, experts say
Loud noises in the world's oceans, caused by ships, powerful sonar, and oil and gas exploration, are negatively affecting a range of sea critters, including whales, dolphins, sea turtles, and others, according to a report by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Increased noise levels have not only been scaring animals and shortening the distance over which they can communicate with each other, but some loud noises may directly cause tissue damage while others can spur animals into surfacing too quickly, leading to injuries similar to the bends.
Oil Sands Projects, Like Oil Drilling, Put Animal Life In Danger: For Example, Canadian Oil Sands Projects Projected to Kill Up to 166 Million Birds
And yet they’re still going to go through with it. Many preach for oil sands, but as you’ll read, it’s fraught with danger for animal life as well.
Article:
A Bird in the Sand Is Worth ... Very Little
FOLLOW THIS LINK FOR THE FUL L STORY: http://www.grist.org/news/2008/12/03/brdsnd/index.html?source=rss#null
Canadian oil sands projects could kill up to 166 million birds, study says
Posted at 6:18 AM on 03 Dec 2008
Canadian oil sands projects are likely to kill up to 166 million birds over the next 50 years through habitat loss, pollution, and other effects, according to a study by a coalition of environmental groups.
Article:
A Bird in the Sand Is Worth ... Very Little
FOLLOW THIS LINK FOR THE FUL L STORY: http://www.grist.org/news/2008/12/03/brdsnd/index.html?source=rss#null
Canadian oil sands projects could kill up to 166 million birds, study says
Posted at 6:18 AM on 03 Dec 2008
Canadian oil sands projects are likely to kill up to 166 million birds over the next 50 years through habitat loss, pollution, and other effects, according to a study by a coalition of environmental groups.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
British Columbia Govt. (Canada) Paid Aboriginal Group in the Chilcotin to Shoot Wild Horses for Wolf Bait: How You can Help
Also did this to round up other wild horses for live sale, ultimately to slaughterhouses.
Just another sad and irrational governmental decision that used short sided reasoning. Please read below. I’ve posted the contact information that a reader provided on who to contact about this incident.
Posting from Reader
Is there anyone that can help with this very serious issue? Wild horses are being slaughtered in the interior of BC, Canada. I feel public pressure is the only way to stop this outrageous crime.
Please read this:
http://www.vancouversun.com/paid+have+Chilcotin+wild+horses+shot+wolf+bait/1039272/story.html
'Ministry of Forests and Range' Contact info:
Contacts
Ministry Office
Ministry of Forests and Range Mailing address:
PO BOX 9529 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9C3
Minister's Office
HONOURABLE PAT BELL
PO BOX 9049 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9E2
Telephone: 250 387-6240
Fax: 250 387-1040
Deputy Minister's Office
Doug Konkin
Deputy Minister
Telephone: 250 356-5012
Media Enquiries
For Media Enquiries, please contact:
Sophia Proctor
Public Affairs Officer
Telephone: 250 387-4592
Fax: 250 387-8485
E-mail: sophia.proctor@gov.bc.ca
thank you,
Teresa Taylor
BC,Canada
Article:
Gov't paid to have Chilcotin's wild horses shot for wolf bait
http://www.vancouversun.com/paid+have+Chilcotin+wild+horses+shot+wolf+bait/1039272/story.html
By Larry PynnDecember 5, 2008Comments (50)
The B.C. government paid aboriginal people in the Chilcotin to shoot wild horses for wolf bait and to round up other wild horses for live sale, ultimately to slaughterhouses, The Vancouver Sun has learned.
The Ministry of Environment purchased the shot horses as wolf bait for a predator study related to the recovery of threatened caribou herds in the Interior, while the Ministry of Forests and Range bankrolled the live capture of horses as part of a program to reduce competition with range cattle.
News of the provincial actions is generating debate even within the aboriginal community over the management of wild horses in the Chilcotin and the need to ensure their humane treatment.
Joe Alphonse, director of government services with the Tsilhqot'in National Government (TNG), said in an interview Friday his people have been capturing horses for generations for personal use. The sale to auctions and ultimately to slaughterhouses is also a way for natives on economically depressed reserves to earn money.
"It's acceptable," he said. "It's a last resort, but it still can provide a little bit of income. That's been a part of what we've had to rely on."
But Alphonse said his people cannot condone the shooting of wild horses for use as wolf bait.
"That's not something we would endorse," he said. "I think that if the majority of our people found out the Ministry of Environment is trying to hire people to shoot horses, there'd be outrage.
"If you're going to take a horse, you pay respect and get out on the land and chase that animal in on horseback. If you can't do that, to sit and hide there and shoot guns at a horse out in the wild where the animal could get wounded and suffer, we wouldn't endorse that."
Alphonse said the forests ministry, through an agreement with TNG, paid the Stone band $200 a horse to catch 25 horses last winter to reduce competition with ranchers' cattle. Up to half of the horses were sold at auction and ultimately sent to slaughterhouses, he said, and the rest were kept in the Chilcotin as saddle horses.
The forests ministry would like to continue the program this winter if funding is available.
Environment Ministry spokesman Dan Gilmore confirmed the ministry paid members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation of the Nemaiah Valley $500 apiece for four horses last winter.
"When it came time to consider how best to lure and capture wolves for the purposes of the mountain caribou recovery program, it was recommended that we use horseflesh," he said in a statement.
"Knowing of the activities of first nations, we undertook to ask if any first nations communities could offer us horses for the purposes of our mountain caribou project.
"We had a number of positive responses, and acted to purchase horses for an agreed price. First nations people selected the horses to be supplied to us, and dispatched them in preparation for transport."
Rodger Stewart, regional manager of environment for the Cariboo, said his office dealt directly with the Xeni Gwet'in administration, which has management control over the horses, and said he would not rule out making another request in the future. The Xeni Gwet'in could not be reached to comment Friday.
The horses were shot last winter to aid in the live capture of wolves near Quesnel as part of ministry research into threatened caribou populations. Gilmore said larger carcasses are preferred because they keep the wolves longer at one location, and that moose carcasses are not always available.
Mike Pedersen, Chilcotin forest district manager, said the horse culls are a response to ranchers' concerns about loss of forage. "It's a worthwhile project," he said, noting that horses also compete with moose and mule deer. "These guys (ranchers) just have to buy more hay. And in these times for those individuals, it's extremely difficult."
Aerial surveys in the area showed that the wild horse population has increased to 442 in 2008 from 123 in 1998.
Pedersen said he would like to continue the program this year, but won't know if there is money for it until January.
Alphonse said that despite native participation in the government-financed cull, he does not believe there are too many wild horses in the Chilcotin. "There's not an overpopulation," he said.
The Spanish introduced the modern horse to North America about five centuries ago. By the time explorer Simon Fraser ventured through the Chilcotin two centuries ago, the horse was already there.
David Williams of Friends of the Nemaiah Valley said he supports the right of natives to capture horses. But he urged the province to declare the free-roaming horses wildlife and to develop policy to ensure their capture is scientifically justified and humane. Currently, wild horses are considered feral and lack protection.
The Tsilhqot'in National Government represents 3,500 people in six communities.
Just another sad and irrational governmental decision that used short sided reasoning. Please read below. I’ve posted the contact information that a reader provided on who to contact about this incident.
Posting from Reader
Is there anyone that can help with this very serious issue? Wild horses are being slaughtered in the interior of BC, Canada. I feel public pressure is the only way to stop this outrageous crime.
Please read this:
http://www.vancouversun.com/
'Ministry of Forests and Range' Contact info:
Contacts
Ministry Office
Ministry of Forests and Range Mailing address:
PO BOX 9529 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9C3
Minister's Office
HONOURABLE PAT BELL
PO BOX 9049 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9E2
Telephone: 250 387-6240
Fax: 250 387-1040
Deputy Minister's Office
Doug Konkin
Deputy Minister
Telephone: 250 356-5012
Media Enquiries
For Media Enquiries, please contact:
Sophia Proctor
Public Affairs Officer
Telephone: 250 387-4592
Fax: 250 387-8485
E-mail: sophia.proctor@gov.bc.ca
thank you,
Teresa Taylor
BC,Canada
Article:
Gov't paid to have Chilcotin's wild horses shot for wolf bait
http://www.vancouversun.com/
By Larry PynnDecember 5, 2008Comments (50)
The B.C. government paid aboriginal people in the Chilcotin to shoot wild horses for wolf bait and to round up other wild horses for live sale, ultimately to slaughterhouses, The Vancouver Sun has learned.
The Ministry of Environment purchased the shot horses as wolf bait for a predator study related to the recovery of threatened caribou herds in the Interior, while the Ministry of Forests and Range bankrolled the live capture of horses as part of a program to reduce competition with range cattle.
News of the provincial actions is generating debate even within the aboriginal community over the management of wild horses in the Chilcotin and the need to ensure their humane treatment.
Joe Alphonse, director of government services with the Tsilhqot'in National Government (TNG), said in an interview Friday his people have been capturing horses for generations for personal use. The sale to auctions and ultimately to slaughterhouses is also a way for natives on economically depressed reserves to earn money.
"It's acceptable," he said. "It's a last resort, but it still can provide a little bit of income. That's been a part of what we've had to rely on."
But Alphonse said his people cannot condone the shooting of wild horses for use as wolf bait.
"That's not something we would endorse," he said. "I think that if the majority of our people found out the Ministry of Environment is trying to hire people to shoot horses, there'd be outrage.
"If you're going to take a horse, you pay respect and get out on the land and chase that animal in on horseback. If you can't do that, to sit and hide there and shoot guns at a horse out in the wild where the animal could get wounded and suffer, we wouldn't endorse that."
Alphonse said the forests ministry, through an agreement with TNG, paid the Stone band $200 a horse to catch 25 horses last winter to reduce competition with ranchers' cattle. Up to half of the horses were sold at auction and ultimately sent to slaughterhouses, he said, and the rest were kept in the Chilcotin as saddle horses.
The forests ministry would like to continue the program this winter if funding is available.
Environment Ministry spokesman Dan Gilmore confirmed the ministry paid members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nation of the Nemaiah Valley $500 apiece for four horses last winter.
"When it came time to consider how best to lure and capture wolves for the purposes of the mountain caribou recovery program, it was recommended that we use horseflesh," he said in a statement.
"Knowing of the activities of first nations, we undertook to ask if any first nations communities could offer us horses for the purposes of our mountain caribou project.
"We had a number of positive responses, and acted to purchase horses for an agreed price. First nations people selected the horses to be supplied to us, and dispatched them in preparation for transport."
Rodger Stewart, regional manager of environment for the Cariboo, said his office dealt directly with the Xeni Gwet'in administration, which has management control over the horses, and said he would not rule out making another request in the future. The Xeni Gwet'in could not be reached to comment Friday.
The horses were shot last winter to aid in the live capture of wolves near Quesnel as part of ministry research into threatened caribou populations. Gilmore said larger carcasses are preferred because they keep the wolves longer at one location, and that moose carcasses are not always available.
Mike Pedersen, Chilcotin forest district manager, said the horse culls are a response to ranchers' concerns about loss of forage. "It's a worthwhile project," he said, noting that horses also compete with moose and mule deer. "These guys (ranchers) just have to buy more hay. And in these times for those individuals, it's extremely difficult."
Aerial surveys in the area showed that the wild horse population has increased to 442 in 2008 from 123 in 1998.
Pedersen said he would like to continue the program this year, but won't know if there is money for it until January.
Alphonse said that despite native participation in the government-financed cull, he does not believe there are too many wild horses in the Chilcotin. "There's not an overpopulation," he said.
The Spanish introduced the modern horse to North America about five centuries ago. By the time explorer Simon Fraser ventured through the Chilcotin two centuries ago, the horse was already there.
David Williams of Friends of the Nemaiah Valley said he supports the right of natives to capture horses. But he urged the province to declare the free-roaming horses wildlife and to develop policy to ensure their capture is scientifically justified and humane. Currently, wild horses are considered feral and lack protection.
The Tsilhqot'in National Government represents 3,500 people in six communities.
Friday, December 05, 2008
GEARI is Looking for Volunteers to Post Animal Rights News to the GEARI Blog: Make a Positive Contribution to Animal Rights and Concerns
Make a Positive Contribution to Animal Rights and Concerns that Affect the Lives of Non-Human Animals.
As many of you know, it’s difficult to keep up with everything in life. Try as hard as I can, I simply cannot post on every news story. As such, I am picky with what I pick to post on. And, as in the example of the Whale Wars posting last week, I keep that up so as to make sure a lot of people see it.
However, the load is pretty big now, so I’m seeking volunteers to post on animal rights news stories and events. I will train on where to find them, and how to post, etc.
I’ll still edit the stories, and will also keep posting. But, I really want to make sure we cover all stories regarding animal rights.
This animal rights news blog has grown considerably since its inception. Like our main site – geari.org, we drive to be a great research resource for animal rights related information. We need to keep growing and going!
So, if you’re interested, email me via the link in this blog, or via geari.org (at) gmail.com
This could be a way for you to make a positive contribution to animal rights and concerns that affect the lives of non-human animals!
I look forward to hearing from you.
As many of you know, it’s difficult to keep up with everything in life. Try as hard as I can, I simply cannot post on every news story. As such, I am picky with what I pick to post on. And, as in the example of the Whale Wars posting last week, I keep that up so as to make sure a lot of people see it.
However, the load is pretty big now, so I’m seeking volunteers to post on animal rights news stories and events. I will train on where to find them, and how to post, etc.
I’ll still edit the stories, and will also keep posting. But, I really want to make sure we cover all stories regarding animal rights.
This animal rights news blog has grown considerably since its inception. Like our main site – geari.org, we drive to be a great research resource for animal rights related information. We need to keep growing and going!
So, if you’re interested, email me via the link in this blog, or via geari.org (at) gmail.com
This could be a way for you to make a positive contribution to animal rights and concerns that affect the lives of non-human animals!
I look forward to hearing from you.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Animal Planet’s Whale Wars: Fridays - 9PM: Follows Capt. Paul Watson - Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to Prevent Japanese from Killing Whales
I’m sure many of you know of this show. I received this email today and wanted to share it for those who have yet to watch the show. I encourage all to do so, as we need to have Animal Planet know that shows exposing animal cruelty (whaling) will be supported.
Unfortunately, the Japanese continue to carry out their cruel ways by thumbing their noses at international law and kill whales.
As stated below, “…the crew has managed to save more than 300 whales.” I’ll let the email below say the rest.
See too the Whale Wars ekit at http://press.discovery.com/ekits/whale-wars for more information on the show, including past episodes.
Here is the main web page for Animal Planet’s Whale Wars is http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/
For more on the truth behind whaling in general and Japan and it’s insistence on whaling illegally, see http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/10/iceland-resume-whaling-excellent.html
For more on Japan and it’s other deranged practice of killing of dolphins - http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/11/coalition-of-marine-scientists-has.html
Email I received about Whale Wars:
I just wanted to follow up with you to see if you had the opportunity to watch the first 3 episodes of Animal Planet’s Whale Wars this month? After only 3 episodes, Whale Wars has been rated as Animal Planet’s best performing Friday primetime telecast in five years.
Animal Planet’s Whale Wars (Fridays at 9PM) follows Captain Paul Watson (co-founder of Greenpeace) of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and his crew as they confront and try to prevent Japanese ships from killing whales off the coast of Antarctica (the crew has managed to save more than 300 whales). This show is packed with excitement – so far, Captain Paul Watson and his crew of 34 have battled sea sickness, a helicopter accident, a dangerous encounter with a Japanese whaling boat, a hostage situation, and more.
If you missed the show, I’ve included the link to the e-kit below, where you can watch full episodes. I’d love to hear your thoughts and see if you are interested in blogging about the show! If you are interested in posting a blog entry, let me know and I can send you a few clips you can embed in your post.
Please let me know if you have additional questions!
Regards,
Andrea
Whale Wars ekit: http://press.discovery.com/ekits/whale-wars (The ekit has lots of additional information about the show, including crew bios, episode descriptions, full episodes, and more)
Unfortunately, the Japanese continue to carry out their cruel ways by thumbing their noses at international law and kill whales.
As stated below, “…the crew has managed to save more than 300 whales.” I’ll let the email below say the rest.
See too the Whale Wars ekit at http://press.discovery.com/ekits/whale-wars for more information on the show, including past episodes.
Here is the main web page for Animal Planet’s Whale Wars is http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/
For more on the truth behind whaling in general and Japan and it’s insistence on whaling illegally, see http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/10/iceland-resume-whaling-excellent.html
For more on Japan and it’s other deranged practice of killing of dolphins - http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/11/coalition-of-marine-scientists-has.html
Email I received about Whale Wars:
I just wanted to follow up with you to see if you had the opportunity to watch the first 3 episodes of Animal Planet’s Whale Wars this month? After only 3 episodes, Whale Wars has been rated as Animal Planet’s best performing Friday primetime telecast in five years.
Animal Planet’s Whale Wars (Fridays at 9PM) follows Captain Paul Watson (co-founder of Greenpeace) of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and his crew as they confront and try to prevent Japanese ships from killing whales off the coast of Antarctica (the crew has managed to save more than 300 whales). This show is packed with excitement – so far, Captain Paul Watson and his crew of 34 have battled sea sickness, a helicopter accident, a dangerous encounter with a Japanese whaling boat, a hostage situation, and more.
If you missed the show, I’ve included the link to the e-kit below, where you can watch full episodes. I’d love to hear your thoughts and see if you are interested in blogging about the show! If you are interested in posting a blog entry, let me know and I can send you a few clips you can embed in your post.
Please let me know if you have additional questions!
Regards,
Andrea
Whale Wars ekit: http://press.discovery.com/ekits/whale-wars (The ekit has lots of additional information about the show, including crew bios, episode descriptions, full episodes, and more)
Humane Society of the United States files Lawsuit Against Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue: Falsely Label Fur Clothing Items
Just as with false advertising in general, failing to properly label clothing items as contacting fur is against the law. More specifically, it is a violation of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.
As stated below, “[t]he suit claims that Dillard's, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue and designer Andrew Marc misrepresent fur products by labeling and marketing them as "faux fur," when they are not; or by advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur, when they are really made from raccoon dog, a canine species from Asia….”
This isn’t the first time this issue has come up. We wrote a story here - http://geari.blogspot.com/2007/01/retail-company-jc-penny-knowingly.html about JC Penny knowingly selling items with dog fur.
In relation, I also wrote a while back on fur and China. Please see that post at:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/02/cruel-china-keeps-up-its-status-as.html
Article:
Humane Society sues retailers, designers over fur
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvG9dlIes0vYdnVcKDKSaLUYBLQwD94LLQH00
By GILLIAN GAYNAIR – 21 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Humane Society of the United States filed a lawsuit Monday against six major retailers and fashion designers alleging they falsely advertise and label fur garments.
The suit claims that Dillard's, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue and designer Andrew Marc misrepresent fur products by labeling and marketing them as "faux fur," when they are not; or by advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur, when they are really made from raccoon dog, a canine species from Asia.
The complaint also alleges that the retailers are in violation of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibit mislabeling of fur products.
Rebecca Judd, senior attorney with the Humane Society, said the group is seeking a court order to halt to what she called deceptive business practices by retailers.
"We filed this after we tried now for several years to have the fur industry stop their widespread false advertising and labeling," Judd said.
She added the group wants to alert consumers, especially those concerned about animal welfare, that fur garments are "best left out of the shopping bag."
Representatives from Macy's and Neiman Marcus said they don't comment on pending litigation. Dillard's, Lord & Taylor and Andrew Marc did not return telephone calls for comment. A representative from Saks could not be immediately reached by The Associated Press after calls seeking comment.
Judd said the suit was filed in D.C. under its Consumer Protection Procedures Act because the Humane Society focused much of its investigation in the Washington region. All the retailers named in the suit have stores in the area. Andrew Marc sells his brands online and in retail stores around Washington.
Since it began investigating in 2005, Judd said the Humane Society has sent dozens of letters to retailers — including those named in Monday's suit — informing them of their findings.
Some companies, including Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger stopped selling fur products, Judd said. Others, such as rap artist Sean "Diddy" Combs, quit producing coats from his Sean John line that had raccoon dog fur; and rapper Jay-Z pulled coats with raccoon dog from his Rocawear label.
Raccoon dogs resemble oversized, fluffy raccoons and aren't kept as pets. According to the suit, more than 1.5 million of them are being raised for their fur in China, and have been documented to be skinned alive. Importing raccoon dog fur isn't illegal.
The Humane Society never received a "written commitment to stop selling mislabeled fur" from the six defendants after alerting them to the group's findings, Judd said.
The defendants are also among more than 20 companies named in two legal petitions the Humane Society filed earlier this year and in 2007 with the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces the federal fur labeling act.
In the petitions, the animal rights group ask the commission to fine the high-end retailers and designers of clothing that contains mislabeled fur. The group also would like inventories seized and, possibly, charges filed.
In 2007, Charles Jayson, chief executive of Andrew Marc, disputed the Humane Society and insisted in a statement that all fur on his coats labeled as raccoon contains "only farm-bred raccoon fur from Finland, and our items labeled 'faux fur' are a 100 percent synthetic fabric."
Mislabeling fur is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $5,000 fine or a year in prison. Fur valued at less than $150 doesn't have to be labeled.
The petitions are still pending.
The Humane Society said it began investigating mislabeled fur claims after the society got a tip from someone who bought a coat with trim labeled as faux fur that felt real. At the time, teams bought coats from popular retailers and then had the coats tested by mass spectrometry, which measures the mass and sequence of proteins.
The society said most of the fur came from China.
As stated below, “[t]he suit claims that Dillard's, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue and designer Andrew Marc misrepresent fur products by labeling and marketing them as "faux fur," when they are not; or by advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur, when they are really made from raccoon dog, a canine species from Asia….”
This isn’t the first time this issue has come up. We wrote a story here - http://geari.blogspot.com/2007/01/retail-company-jc-penny-knowingly.html about JC Penny knowingly selling items with dog fur.
In relation, I also wrote a while back on fur and China. Please see that post at:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/02/cruel-china-keeps-up-its-status-as.html
Article:
Humane Society sues retailers, designers over fur
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvG9dlIes0vYdnVcKDKSaLUYBLQwD94LLQH00
By GILLIAN GAYNAIR – 21 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Humane Society of the United States filed a lawsuit Monday against six major retailers and fashion designers alleging they falsely advertise and label fur garments.
The suit claims that Dillard's, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue and designer Andrew Marc misrepresent fur products by labeling and marketing them as "faux fur," when they are not; or by advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur, when they are really made from raccoon dog, a canine species from Asia.
The complaint also alleges that the retailers are in violation of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibit mislabeling of fur products.
Rebecca Judd, senior attorney with the Humane Society, said the group is seeking a court order to halt to what she called deceptive business practices by retailers.
"We filed this after we tried now for several years to have the fur industry stop their widespread false advertising and labeling," Judd said.
She added the group wants to alert consumers, especially those concerned about animal welfare, that fur garments are "best left out of the shopping bag."
Representatives from Macy's and Neiman Marcus said they don't comment on pending litigation. Dillard's, Lord & Taylor and Andrew Marc did not return telephone calls for comment. A representative from Saks could not be immediately reached by The Associated Press after calls seeking comment.
Judd said the suit was filed in D.C. under its Consumer Protection Procedures Act because the Humane Society focused much of its investigation in the Washington region. All the retailers named in the suit have stores in the area. Andrew Marc sells his brands online and in retail stores around Washington.
Since it began investigating in 2005, Judd said the Humane Society has sent dozens of letters to retailers — including those named in Monday's suit — informing them of their findings.
Some companies, including Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger stopped selling fur products, Judd said. Others, such as rap artist Sean "Diddy" Combs, quit producing coats from his Sean John line that had raccoon dog fur; and rapper Jay-Z pulled coats with raccoon dog from his Rocawear label.
Raccoon dogs resemble oversized, fluffy raccoons and aren't kept as pets. According to the suit, more than 1.5 million of them are being raised for their fur in China, and have been documented to be skinned alive. Importing raccoon dog fur isn't illegal.
The Humane Society never received a "written commitment to stop selling mislabeled fur" from the six defendants after alerting them to the group's findings, Judd said.
The defendants are also among more than 20 companies named in two legal petitions the Humane Society filed earlier this year and in 2007 with the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces the federal fur labeling act.
In the petitions, the animal rights group ask the commission to fine the high-end retailers and designers of clothing that contains mislabeled fur. The group also would like inventories seized and, possibly, charges filed.
In 2007, Charles Jayson, chief executive of Andrew Marc, disputed the Humane Society and insisted in a statement that all fur on his coats labeled as raccoon contains "only farm-bred raccoon fur from Finland, and our items labeled 'faux fur' are a 100 percent synthetic fabric."
Mislabeling fur is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $5,000 fine or a year in prison. Fur valued at less than $150 doesn't have to be labeled.
The petitions are still pending.
The Humane Society said it began investigating mislabeled fur claims after the society got a tip from someone who bought a coat with trim labeled as faux fur that felt real. At the time, teams bought coats from popular retailers and then had the coats tested by mass spectrometry, which measures the mass and sequence of proteins.
The society said most of the fur came from China.
Animal Abuser and Convicted Felon Michael Vick Pleads Guilty to State Charges of Dogfighting
Remember, Vick was recently convicted of federal charges related to dog fighting. So, these are additional charges.
For those who have forgotten, please visit our story about his dog fighting conviction and description of horrible abuse of dogs he carried out at http://geari.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-vick-former-quarterback-of.html
Article:
Vick Pleads Guilty to State Charge
http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/nflnewsfeed/2008/11/vick-pleads-guilty-to-state-charge.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Michael Vick pleaded guilty today to a state dogfighting-related charge and was sentenced to a suspended jail term.
The resolution of the state charges against Vick, the quarterback who is serving a 23-month federal prison sentence and is on indefinite suspension by the NFL, potentially could speed his prospective return to football. With no further charges pending against him, Vick becomes eligible to serve the final portion of his federal prison sentence in a halfway house.
"I want to apologize to the court, my family and to all the kids who looked up to me as a role model," Vick told the judge during today's hearing, according to the Associated Press.
Vick appeared in Surry County Circuit Court in Sussex, Va., reportedly arriving more than two hours early and wearing a gray suit.
He pleaded guilty to one count under a plea deal and not guilty to another count, and had that charge dropped. He was sentenced to a three-year suspended jail term and probation.
The jail term remains suspended as long as Vick completes four years of good behavior.
Surry County Circuit Judge Samuel Campbell approved the plea deal. He had not been bound by it in sentencing Vick.
Vick is serving his federal prison sentence in Leavenworth, Kan., for his role in a dogfighting operation based at a home that he owned in Virginia. He's scheduled to be released on July 20, 2009.
Each of the state felony counts against Vick was punishable by up to five years in jail. Vick pleaded guilty to one count of promoting dogfighting and not guilty to a count that involved animal cruelty, under the plea deal.
Vick was taken to Virginia last Thursday after Campbell rejected a request by Vicks' attorneys for him to plead guilty by videoconference.
The NFL will have to rule on Vick's suspension and his eligibility to play. Such a ruling is unlikely before he's released from prison. He remains under contract to the Atlanta Falcons but the franchise's owner, Arthur Blank, has said the team will not have him back. Vick's attorneys have indicated in bankruptcy court proceedings that he expects to play in the NFL again.
Vick reportedly arrived around 6:40 a.m. for his court appearance today. He had shackles on his wrists and ankles, according to the AP, but they were removed for the hearing. Family members and friends attended the hearing. About 20 uniformed police officers were stationed outside the building and Vick was driven to a covered garage in the back, the AP reported. Nine animal rights protesters stood quietly outside, according to the AP report.
For those who have forgotten, please visit our story about his dog fighting conviction and description of horrible abuse of dogs he carried out at http://geari.blogspot.com/2007/08/michael-vick-former-quarterback-of.html
Article:
Vick Pleads Guilty to State Charge
http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/nflnewsfeed/2008/11/vick-pleads-guilty-to-state-charge.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Michael Vick pleaded guilty today to a state dogfighting-related charge and was sentenced to a suspended jail term.
The resolution of the state charges against Vick, the quarterback who is serving a 23-month federal prison sentence and is on indefinite suspension by the NFL, potentially could speed his prospective return to football. With no further charges pending against him, Vick becomes eligible to serve the final portion of his federal prison sentence in a halfway house.
"I want to apologize to the court, my family and to all the kids who looked up to me as a role model," Vick told the judge during today's hearing, according to the Associated Press.
Vick appeared in Surry County Circuit Court in Sussex, Va., reportedly arriving more than two hours early and wearing a gray suit.
He pleaded guilty to one count under a plea deal and not guilty to another count, and had that charge dropped. He was sentenced to a three-year suspended jail term and probation.
The jail term remains suspended as long as Vick completes four years of good behavior.
Surry County Circuit Judge Samuel Campbell approved the plea deal. He had not been bound by it in sentencing Vick.
Vick is serving his federal prison sentence in Leavenworth, Kan., for his role in a dogfighting operation based at a home that he owned in Virginia. He's scheduled to be released on July 20, 2009.
Each of the state felony counts against Vick was punishable by up to five years in jail. Vick pleaded guilty to one count of promoting dogfighting and not guilty to a count that involved animal cruelty, under the plea deal.
Vick was taken to Virginia last Thursday after Campbell rejected a request by Vicks' attorneys for him to plead guilty by videoconference.
The NFL will have to rule on Vick's suspension and his eligibility to play. Such a ruling is unlikely before he's released from prison. He remains under contract to the Atlanta Falcons but the franchise's owner, Arthur Blank, has said the team will not have him back. Vick's attorneys have indicated in bankruptcy court proceedings that he expects to play in the NFL again.
Vick reportedly arrived around 6:40 a.m. for his court appearance today. He had shackles on his wrists and ankles, according to the AP, but they were removed for the hearing. Family members and friends attended the hearing. About 20 uniformed police officers were stationed outside the building and Vick was driven to a covered garage in the back, the AP reported. Nine animal rights protesters stood quietly outside, according to the AP report.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
List of Charities that Test on Animals and List of Charities that DO NOT Test on Animals
Unfortunately, just as with companies, charities still unnecessarly engage in animal testing (vivisection).
Perhaps you are a regular giver to a particular charity, but want to make sure they do not test on animals. Perhaps you want to start giving to a particular charity but do not want to support animal testing (vivisection).
How do you quickly find out if a particular charity tests on animals?
It’s actually pretty easy to do so.
I’ve listed three key resources below that will help you research if a charity engages in, or does not engage in, animal testing (vivisection). Please bookmark or pass on to friends, co workers and family.
For a link to a current list of charities that test on animals (perform animal testing), visit http://www.geari.org/charities-test-on-animals.html
For a link to a current list of charities that DO NOT test on animals (DO NOT perform animal testing), visit http://www.geari.org/charities-dont-test-on-animals.html
Another excellent way to find out if a charity tests on animals or does not test on animals is to visit the PCRM Human Charity Seal lookup site at http://www.humaneseal.org/search.cfm Simply put in the name of a charity or search by category, and very quickly you will find out if that charity is associated with animal testing (vivisection). Quick and very easy to use.
List of Companies that Test on Animals and List of Companies that DO NOT Test on Animals
Unfortunately animal testing (vivisection) is alive and well. What if though you want to quickly find out if a particular company tests on animals? How do you do that?
I periodically like to remind people just how easy it is to quickly find out if a company does test on animals or if a company does not test on animals. I’ve listed three key resources below that will help you research if a company engages in, or does not engage in, animal testing (vivisection).
Please bookmark or pass on to friends, co workers and family.
For a link to a current list of companies that test on animals (perform animal testing), visit http://www.geari.org/companies-test-on-animals.html
For a link to a current list of companies that DO NOT test on animals (DO NOT perform animal testing), visit http://www.geari.org/companies-dont-test-on-animals.html
The National Anti-Vivisection Society(NAVS) Animal Testing Company and Product Look Up Tool at http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_whois Simply put in the name of a company or the name of a product and very quickly you will see if that company or product is associated with animal testing. A quick and easy-to-use resource.
I periodically like to remind people just how easy it is to quickly find out if a company does test on animals or if a company does not test on animals. I’ve listed three key resources below that will help you research if a company engages in, or does not engage in, animal testing (vivisection).
Please bookmark or pass on to friends, co workers and family.
For a link to a current list of companies that test on animals (perform animal testing), visit http://www.geari.org/companies-test-on-animals.html
For a link to a current list of companies that DO NOT test on animals (DO NOT perform animal testing), visit http://www.geari.org/companies-dont-test-on-animals.html
The National Anti-Vivisection Society(NAVS) Animal Testing Company and Product Look Up Tool at http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_whois Simply put in the name of a company or the name of a product and very quickly you will see if that company or product is associated with animal testing. A quick and easy-to-use resource.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Excellent Video Shows the Life and Concerns of the Endangered Mountain Gorilla: Clear Footage & Sound Interviews take you Into their Challenged World
The endangered Mountain Gorilla is a species that has always held a place in my concerns. As many know, like the chimpanzee, the mountain gorilla is a closely related primate species to modern Homo sapiens (humans). Though most don’t view it as such, it is true that their destruction is our destruction. In the same respect, unfortunately, their destruction is also due to human destruction caused a lot by human activity.
This video does a couple of things. For one, it gives a very excellent and clear video trip into the Bwindi Forest and to the daily life of the Mountain Gorilla. It’s hard not to be in awe of the environment they live in, and of their beauty and behavior.
Two, it gives a clear description of why they are endangered and what factors are contributing to their continual population decline. There are only 720 left in the wild. A critical state indeed.
A few factors mentioned include:
Pressure for resources: Oil and gas, minerals, land – for coffee and lumber (hardwoods – aka, vanity).
As mentioned in the video, they are “surrounded by a sea of humans.” So pressure for arable land from locals.
War, political instability, national and regional conflicts: Everyone remembers the hell of the strife between Uganda (where the Bwindi Forest is), Rwanda, DRC.
The disgusting practice of bush meat: Gorillas inadvertently and purposely caught in snares to fee the vanity of the appetite of groups of humans.
I encourage all of you to take a few minutes and view the video. It really is well done and will give you a clear look at the life of the Mountain Gorilla and the real concerns they face.
The video is embedded below. Simply click on it to view it.
You can also view the video via this link
http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1877562164
This video does a couple of things. For one, it gives a very excellent and clear video trip into the Bwindi Forest and to the daily life of the Mountain Gorilla. It’s hard not to be in awe of the environment they live in, and of their beauty and behavior.
Two, it gives a clear description of why they are endangered and what factors are contributing to their continual population decline. There are only 720 left in the wild. A critical state indeed.
A few factors mentioned include:
Pressure for resources: Oil and gas, minerals, land – for coffee and lumber (hardwoods – aka, vanity).
As mentioned in the video, they are “surrounded by a sea of humans.” So pressure for arable land from locals.
War, political instability, national and regional conflicts: Everyone remembers the hell of the strife between Uganda (where the Bwindi Forest is), Rwanda, DRC.
The disgusting practice of bush meat: Gorillas inadvertently and purposely caught in snares to fee the vanity of the appetite of groups of humans.
I encourage all of you to take a few minutes and view the video. It really is well done and will give you a clear look at the life of the Mountain Gorilla and the real concerns they face.
The video is embedded below. Simply click on it to view it.
You can also view the video via this link
http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1877562164
Legislative Animal Rights Victory: Massachusetts Voters Overwhelmingly Vote to Ban Greyhound Racing in the State
This amazing ban does a couple important things. For one, the obvious is that it will immediately put an end to the suffering of racing dogs at tracks in the state of Massachusetts. The other less obvious consequence, is that it will begin to raise awareness to the suffering and cruelty behind greyhound racing in general. In effect, it answers the question: why is greyhound racing cruel? This full ban will make people stop and think about greyhound racing in a greater way, as it probably is an issue they haven’t thought much about before.
To learn more about why greyhound racing is inherently cruel, visit this excellent page by Grey2K USA at http://www.grey2kusa.org/racing/cruel.html Here are just a few facts you will see at the page:
“A Life of Endless Confinement: While at the racetrack, dogs are confined in small cages barely large enough for them to stand up or turn around for long hours each day. On average, over one thousand dogs live in warehouse style kennels at each racetrack.
Dogs Suffer Serious Injuries: Thousands of dogs are seriously injured each year at commercial racetracks, including dogs that suffer broken legs, cardiac arrest, spinal cord paralysis and broken necks. Unfortunately, not all of these injuries are reported to the public because some states do not even keep records on the number of dogs injured each year.
Dogs are Killed When They are No Longer Profitable: Thousands of dogs are killed when they are injured or are no longer fast enough to be profitable. According to the pro-racing National Greyhound Association, an estimated 5,000 dogs were killed in 2003.”
Article:
Mass. voters approve dog racing ban
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_3_setu.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4
November 4, 2008 10:18 PM Email
(David Kamerman/Globe Staff)
Christine Dorchak, president of Grey2K USA, a greyhound advocacy group, cheered with Kathy Estridge, Leslie Scheideler, and Tracy Casner, during a party for supporters of the dog racing ban at a Boston nightclub.
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff
Massachusetts voters today embraced a ballot question to end greyhound racing in the state, rejecting track owners’ arguments that the ban would cost jobs at a time of economic hardship in favor of protecting dogs from harm.
The contentious ballot question passed amid emotional ad campaigns by both sides. Proponents used images of sad-eyed greyhounds that they say are caged inhumanely and raced to injury while opponents put the spotlight on the track employees who would be put out of work if the ballot question passed.
"It's not fair to the dogs," said Dulce Fajardo, 41, a Roxbury Democrat who voted for the ballot question. "I love animals. And for me this is something cruel. They can't defend themselves so we have to do it for them."
The Associated Press called the outcome shortly after 10 p.m.
The Committee to Protect Dogs argued that racing dogs are treated inhumanely -- kept in cages for most of the day and often injured when they are forced to run for sport. The campaign relied upon data kept by the State Racing Commission since mid-2002 showing injuries to more than 800 greyhounds.
The committee -- formed by Grey2K USA, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Angell Medical Center -- spent an estimated $500,000 through Oct. 15, the most recent reporting deadline, campaign finance reports show, and received about $144,000 in in-kind contributions. Activists estimated they had 500 volunteers at the polls today, some of them with their own greyhounds by their sides.
"We had an overwhelmingly positive response, my dog and I," said Christine Dorchak, the co-chair of the committee who worked the polls with her dog, Zoe. "We're optimistic that this will, in fact, be the year of the greyhound."
The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition -- funded by the Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park -- launched an emotional counter-campaign arguing that the employees of the state's two dog tracks had done nothing wrong. Instead, the track workers said, they have been following the regulations as handed down by the State Racing Commission after the last ballot question failed. (They note that the injuries they must report to the commission include minor ones.) The coalition argued that the ballot question would put the needs of dogs before the needs of people -- among them, some 1,000 employees of the state's two dog tracks who would lose their jobs.
This time, the ballot question proposed to phase out racing by 2010, leaving workers time to find alternative jobs. But the track and kennel owners fighting the initiative were unmoved by that gesture, saying that a ban on racing would still eliminate jobs and tax revenue at a time when both are sorely needed.
"The real question here is an economic one," said Glenn Totten, a consultant working with the coalition to fight the ballot question. "I don't think things are any better in Worcester or Springfield or Pittsfield in 2008 in comparison to where they were in 2000."
The opposition relied entirely on in-kind contributions from the Raynham-Taunton track of little over $206,000 through the Oct. 15 reporting deadline, and spent about $400,000 since then on broadcast advertising. The campaign was getting help at the polls from union forces, including the electrical workers, carpenters, police, and Teamsters unions.
To learn more about why greyhound racing is inherently cruel, visit this excellent page by Grey2K USA at http://www.grey2kusa.org/racing/cruel.html Here are just a few facts you will see at the page:
“A Life of Endless Confinement: While at the racetrack, dogs are confined in small cages barely large enough for them to stand up or turn around for long hours each day. On average, over one thousand dogs live in warehouse style kennels at each racetrack.
Dogs Suffer Serious Injuries: Thousands of dogs are seriously injured each year at commercial racetracks, including dogs that suffer broken legs, cardiac arrest, spinal cord paralysis and broken necks. Unfortunately, not all of these injuries are reported to the public because some states do not even keep records on the number of dogs injured each year.
Dogs are Killed When They are No Longer Profitable: Thousands of dogs are killed when they are injured or are no longer fast enough to be profitable. According to the pro-racing National Greyhound Association, an estimated 5,000 dogs were killed in 2003.”
Article:
Mass. voters approve dog racing ban
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_3_setu.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4
November 4, 2008 10:18 PM Email
(David Kamerman/Globe Staff)
Christine Dorchak, president of Grey2K USA, a greyhound advocacy group, cheered with Kathy Estridge, Leslie Scheideler, and Tracy Casner, during a party for supporters of the dog racing ban at a Boston nightclub.
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff
Massachusetts voters today embraced a ballot question to end greyhound racing in the state, rejecting track owners’ arguments that the ban would cost jobs at a time of economic hardship in favor of protecting dogs from harm.
The contentious ballot question passed amid emotional ad campaigns by both sides. Proponents used images of sad-eyed greyhounds that they say are caged inhumanely and raced to injury while opponents put the spotlight on the track employees who would be put out of work if the ballot question passed.
"It's not fair to the dogs," said Dulce Fajardo, 41, a Roxbury Democrat who voted for the ballot question. "I love animals. And for me this is something cruel. They can't defend themselves so we have to do it for them."
The Associated Press called the outcome shortly after 10 p.m.
The Committee to Protect Dogs argued that racing dogs are treated inhumanely -- kept in cages for most of the day and often injured when they are forced to run for sport. The campaign relied upon data kept by the State Racing Commission since mid-2002 showing injuries to more than 800 greyhounds.
The committee -- formed by Grey2K USA, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Angell Medical Center -- spent an estimated $500,000 through Oct. 15, the most recent reporting deadline, campaign finance reports show, and received about $144,000 in in-kind contributions. Activists estimated they had 500 volunteers at the polls today, some of them with their own greyhounds by their sides.
"We had an overwhelmingly positive response, my dog and I," said Christine Dorchak, the co-chair of the committee who worked the polls with her dog, Zoe. "We're optimistic that this will, in fact, be the year of the greyhound."
The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition -- funded by the Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park -- launched an emotional counter-campaign arguing that the employees of the state's two dog tracks had done nothing wrong. Instead, the track workers said, they have been following the regulations as handed down by the State Racing Commission after the last ballot question failed. (They note that the injuries they must report to the commission include minor ones.) The coalition argued that the ballot question would put the needs of dogs before the needs of people -- among them, some 1,000 employees of the state's two dog tracks who would lose their jobs.
This time, the ballot question proposed to phase out racing by 2010, leaving workers time to find alternative jobs. But the track and kennel owners fighting the initiative were unmoved by that gesture, saying that a ban on racing would still eliminate jobs and tax revenue at a time when both are sorely needed.
"The real question here is an economic one," said Glenn Totten, a consultant working with the coalition to fight the ballot question. "I don't think things are any better in Worcester or Springfield or Pittsfield in 2008 in comparison to where they were in 2000."
The opposition relied entirely on in-kind contributions from the Raynham-Taunton track of little over $206,000 through the Oct. 15 reporting deadline, and spent about $400,000 since then on broadcast advertising. The campaign was getting help at the polls from union forces, including the electrical workers, carpenters, police, and Teamsters unions.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
"Stop Animal Cruelty" Measure in California Passes: Bans Farmers from Raising Egg-Laying Hens, Veal Calves, Pregnant Pigs in Small Cages by 2015
The final percentage I saw was 63 to 33%, so, an overwhelming victory.
As always, any measure in this direction is positive. All can hope though that this measure raises awareness to the cruelty of these industries and subsequently, to people to stop eating veal, etc. This measure simply allows more room for the penned.
For those who need a reminder as to the cruelty of veal, including photos and pictures of abused baby cows, see: http://www.noveal.org/
Article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/MN6V13QHQJ.DTL&type=politics
A measure that would ban farmers from raising egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant pigs in small cages and crates by 2015 appeared to be headed for victory Tuesday night.Supporters of Proposition 2 said the initiative would guarantee farm animals a better life, giving them the space they need to stand up, turn around, lie down and extend their wings, as well as prevent diseases caused by overcrowding.
Opponents argue that the measure would put California's egg industry out of business, as well as put consumers at risk for disease from imported eggs produced in countries with less stringent standards.
Voters seemed to be siding with the Humane Society of the United States, the backers of the initiative. With nearly a third of the precincts reporting, the "Stop Animal Cruelty" measure was winning by a ratio of better than 3 to 2.
"It's common sense to give animals raised for food enough space to turn around," said Wayne Pacelle, president and chief operating officer of the Humane Society. "We are heartened and encouraged by the returns that provide affirmation of that principle."
Florida, Arizona, Colorado and Oregon have passed similar laws for swine and veal.
But California would be the first state in the nation to demand that all egg-producing chickens be kept in more spacious enclosures or free to roam a henhouse.
Most pig and veal farmers in the state have already gone to larger pen sizes for their animals, making the battle mostly between poultry ranchers and animal-rights activists.
California produces about 6 percent of the nation's table eggs, a $330 million business in 2007. Fifty percent of the eggs sold in California come from other states.
Five to 8 percent of the eggs produced in the state come from cage-free chickens. The majority of California's fryer and broiler chickens are already cage-free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search for More Content
Custom Search
