A great article that really brings to light that many of the companies that market themselves as cruelty free or environmental are actually owned by horribly cruel companies that engage in animal testing and create products known for their toxic chemicals.
We wrote a while back about Tom's of Maine Selling Out to Animal Testing Giant Colgate-Palmolive - http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/toms-of-maine-sells-out-to-animal.html
In that, we also discuss other sell outs. Notably, White Wave, Celestial Seasonings, Boca, Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop, and numerous others. In fact, I wrote about the Body Shop’s sell out here: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/once-animal-friendly-company-body-shop_17.html.
As I stated, who would know that if you buy Boca you support Altria, or, what was once known as Philip Morris. Or when you buy Ben and Jerry’s you support Unilever. Sad state of affairs.
The point is that if you are committed to animal rights or environmental issues, know the truth behind the brands. Know who owns what.
Here are a few shockers listed in the story below:
“Burt's Bees is now owned by Clorox, a massive corporate company that has historically cared very little about the environment, but whose main industry is directly associated with harmful chemicals, some of which require warning labels for legal sale.”
“General Mills owns Cascadian Farm; Barbara's Bakery is owned by Weetabix, the leading British cereal company, which is owned by a private investment firm in England; Mother's makes it clear that it is owned by Quaker Oats (which is owned by PepsiCo); Health Valley and Arrowhead Mills are owned by Hain Celestial Group, a natural food company traded on the NASDAQ, with H.J. Heinz owning 16 percent of that company.”
“Odwalla wasn't the small company it once was. It is now owned by Coca-Cola.”
“Coca-Cola also owns Glaceau, the company once known for its "fresh new approach to bottled water that is inspired by nature and enhanced by science." Glaceau is the maker of Vitamin Water, Fruit Water, Smart Water and Vitamin Energy…”
“Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006 for $450 million, in order to compete with Odwalla.”
“Horizon Organic milk was bought out by the largest diary company in the U.S., Dean Foods Co., in 2005.”
“Stoneyfield Farm Yogurt. I knew its socially conscious CEO, Gary Hirshberg, had created major organic brand recognition to become the No. 1 seller of organic yogurt in the United States, but since then Danone, the French conglomerate (which also owns Brown Cow), acquired a majority holding in Stoneyfield. This is the same Danone that had to recall large quantities of its yogurt in 2007 after it was found to contain unsafe levels of dioxins.”
Article:
Burt's Bees, Tom's of Maine, Naked Juice: Your Favorite Brands? Take Another Look -- They May Not Be What They Seem
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/131910/burt%27s_bees%2C_tom%27s_of_maine%2C_naked_juice%3A_your_favorite_brands_take_another_look_--_they_may_not_be_what_they_seem/?page=entire
By Andrea Whitfill, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.
Confident that you are buying good, socially conscious brands? Find out the real story behind all that marketing money and store visibility.
My first introduction to natural, organic and eco-friendly products stems back to the early '90s, when I stumbled upon Burt’s Bees lip balm at an independently owned health food store in the heart of Westport, Kansas City, Mo.
Before the eyesore invasion of ’98, when Starbucks frothed its way into the neighborhood, leading to its ultimate demise, Westport was the kind of 'hood I still yearn for. It was saturated with historically preserved, hip and funky, mom-and-pop-type establishments, delivering their goods people to people.
I was surprised more recently when I saw Burt's Bees products everywhere -- in grocery stores, drug stores, corner bodegas and big-box stores like Target and Wal-Mart. I thought to myself, fantastic; the marketplace is working, and good for Burt. He has made his mark, and the demand for his products is on the rise.
Needless to say, I was shocked when I recently found out that Burt's Bees is now owned by Clorox, a massive corporate company that has historically cared very little about the environment, but whose main industry is directly associated with harmful chemicals, some of which require warning labels for legal sale.
Clorox; yes, that's right -- the bleach company with an estimated revenue of $ 4.8 billion that employs nearly 7,600 workers (now bees) and sells products like Liquid-Plumr, Pine-Sol and Armor All, a far cry from the origins of Burt.
I now understood. The reason Burt's Bees products were everywhere was precisely because they now had a powerful corporation in the driver's seat, with big marketing budgets and existing distribution systems.
The story of Burt is a charming one gone bad. Burt Shavitz, a beekeeper in Dexter, Maine, lived an extremely humble life selling honey in pickle jars from the back of his pickup truck and resided in the wilderness inside a turkey coop without running water or electricity.
In the summer of 1984, Shavitz was driving down the road and spotted a hitchhiker who needed a lift to the post office. He pulled over and picked up Roxanne Quimby, a 34-year-old woman who eventually became Shavitz's lover and business partner. Quimby started helping him tend to the beehives, and that eventually led to the all natural-inspired health care products made with Shavitz's honey and the birth of Burt's Bees products.
Burt's story and very powerful narrative gave Burt's Bees products their legitimacy in my book. Creative entrepreneurs and knowledgeable consumers together working their magic; not the results of a corporate behemoth out to dominate the marketplace.
However, Quimby and Shavitz's relationship became 'sticky' in the late '90s for reasons unclear, yet probably having little to do with honey. Their romantic break up carried over to the split of their business partnership as well. In 1999, Quimby bought out Shavitz's shares of the company for a small six-figure sum. Quimby then continued, becoming phenomenally successfully and growing sales to $43.5 million by 2002.
In 2003, a private equity firm, AEA investors, purchased 80 percent of Burt's Bees from Quimby, with her retaining a 20 percent share and a seat on the board. In 2006, John Replogle, the former general manager of Unilever's skin-care division became CEO and president of Burt's Bees. The company was sold to Clorox in late October 2007 for $925 million.
Quimby was paid more than $300 million for her stake in Burt's Bees. At the time of that deal, Shavitz reportedly demanded more money, and Quimby agreed to pay him $4 million. Quimby now refurbishes fancy, swank homes in Florida, travels the world and buys massive chunks of land in her free time. Our bearded man Shavitz, on the other hand, now 73 and unchanged, continues to reside amidst nature in his now-expanded turkey coop, which still remains absent of electricity or running water.
The Burt's Bees story is disconcerting. I vaguely remembered long ago that one of my favorite ice cream products, Ben & Jerry's, sold out. Unilever (which also owns Breyers), the giant conglomerate with an estimated market cap of $50 billion and close to 174,000 employees, bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000 for $326 million.
I began to wonder about the other products I liked, trusted and respected for their independence and their social responsibility. How many were really owned by big corporations, who were going out of their way to hide the link between the big corporate company with the small, socially responsible brand? It didn't take long for my list of disappointments to grow and grow.
Upon first meeting someone, I can usually tell a quite a lot about them by the contents of their bathroom. The brand I see most often behind medicine cabinets of people I consider to be environmentally conscious is Tom's of Maine. What Tom's says to me about the person is that they are willing to spend a little bit of extra cash in order to take proactive steps to help green the Earth.
Well, no more. My bathroom assessments will never be the same. Tom's of Maine is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, a massive, tanklike company with an estimated 36,000 employees and revenue of approximately $11.4 billion. Its big products include: Ajax, Anbesol and Speedstick.
I am only left to wonder, is Trader Joe's, popularly known to showcase Tom's of Maine in its hygiene department, just as much in the dark about all of this as I have been? Or is Joe's simply another conduit for big corporate products?
As my curiosity grew, I took a little field trip to the grocery store with one of my friends to be a "brand anthropologist." "Let's get to the bottom of this," I said, aiming to check out all of the brands that I and countless other good consumers were buying in our efforts to support grassroots business and not corporate behemoths. Little did I know how deep the hole was going to be, and in some cases, how hard to find out who owns what.
Thinking Dairy
In the dairy section sit many flavors of Stoneyfield Farm Yogurt. I knew its socially conscious CEO, Gary Hirshberg, had created major organic brand recognition to become the No. 1 seller of organic yogurt in the United States, but since then Danone, the French conglomerate (which also owns Brown Cow), acquired a majority holding in Stoneyfield. This is the same Danone that had to recall large quantities of its yogurt in 2007 after it was found to contain unsafe levels of dioxins. (In an interesting twist, the still-active Hirshberg sits on the board of Dannon U.S.A. Unlike most of the early entrepreneurs, who took the dough and left the scene, Hirshberg is still involved. )
Meanwhile, I learned that Horizon Organic milk was bought out by the largest diary company in the U.S., Dean Foods Co., in 2005.
Thirsty? Juices and Water
Next I ventured to the juice section. Drinking Odwalla juices was an expensive habit I had justified for years because of its healthy California brand. The ubiquitous refrigerators in thousands of stores should have given it away that Odwalla wasn't the small company it once was. It is now owned by Coca-Cola. Almost as soon as Coca-Cola bought the company, back in 2001 for $181 million, it stopped selling the fresh-squeezed OJ that had made Odwalla famous and popular among the healthy set. With its massive distribution system, fresh squeezed wouldn't last the days and weeks the juices are in transit or on the shelf.
Not to be outdone (although it took it a while), Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006 for $450 million, in order to compete with Odwalla. Smuckers, the brand we are told is the "brand we can trust", grabbed several juice mainstays from the health food store shelves: After the fall -- R.W. Knudsen and Santa Cruz Organic.
Turns out that Coca-Cola also owns Glaceau, the company once known for its "fresh new approach to bottled water that is inspired by nature and enhanced by science." Glaceau is the maker of Vitamin Water, Fruit Water, Smart Water and Vitamin Energy -- all bottled waters that are adorably marketed and loaded with sugar. It's no wonder Coca-Cola was slapped with a lawsuit in 2006 for making deceptive and unsubstantiated health claims in its Vitamin Water marketing strategies; they are selling glorified sugar water.
As for bottled water, egads! That's a whole article in and of itself. The scourge of bottled water, of course, is an environmental disaster on many levels, as corporations have moved in to take control of water local supplies, while some of the same companies and their mega advertising budgets have created a giant market for bottled water, with enormous waste from plastic bottles and giant carbon foot prints as water is shipped over many thousands of miles from Fiji for example, or Italy, when pretty much no bottled water is needed. Frequently, tap water is of higher quality and more closely tested than bottled water.
And as Michael Blanding notes on AlterNet, "In fact, many times bottled water is tap water. Contrary to the image of water flowing from pristine mountain springs, more than a quarter of bottled water actually comes from municipal water supplies. The industry is dominated by three companies, who together control more than half the market: Coca-Cola, which produces Dasani; Pepsi, which produces Aquafina; and Nestle, which produces several "local" brands, including Poland Spring, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Ozarka and Calistoga. Both Coke and Pepsi exclusively use tap water for their sources, while Nestle uses tap water in some brands.
The Breakfast Nook
Over in the breakfast aisle, my friend was a bit apoplectic when we learned that the "super healthy" Kashi cereals, the favorites of millions of healthy breakfast eaters, was bought in July 2000 for an "undisclosed sum" by Kellogg's, the 12th-largest company in North American food sales, according to Food Processing. I picked up a box of Kashi's "Go Lean Crunch" and searched every word; not one mention of the fact that Kellogg's owns them. That change was rally below the radar. In 2004, Kraft Foods, known for processed cheeses and Kool-Aid, bought the natural cereal maker Back to Nature. Kraft is a subsidiary of Altria, which also owns Philip Morris USA, one of the world's largest producers of cigarettes.
According to the New York Times, "Many of the alternative cereal brands are owned by larger companies, including Kellogg and General Mills."
"Cereals, like milk, are one of the primary entrance points for use of organics," said Lara Christenson of Spins, a market research group for the natural products industry, "which is pretty closely tied to children -- health concerns, keeping pesticides, especially antibiotics, out of the diets of children. These large firms wanted to get a foothold in the natural and organic marketplace. Because of the mind-set of consumers, branding of these products has to be very different than traditional cereals."
These corporate connections are often kept quiet. "There is frequently a backlash when a big cereal package-goods company buys a natural or organic company," Christenson said. "I don't want to say it's manipulative, but consumers are led to believe these brands are pure, natural or organic brands. It's very purposely done."
A little more digging shows that General Mills owns Cascadian Farm; Barbara's Bakery is owned by Weetabix, the leading British cereal company, which is owned by a private investment firm in England; Mother's makes it clear that it is owned by Quaker Oats (which is owned by PepsiCo); Health Valley and Arrowhead Mills are owned by Hain Celestial Group, a natural food company traded on the NASDAQ, with H.J. Heinz owning 16 percent of that company.
The Sweet Tooth
After the Kashi news, I wondered what was next? I didn't have to go any further than the organic chocolate aisle of my favorite deli to find Green and Black's organic chocolate was taken over in 2005 by Schweppes, the 10th-largest company in North American packaged-food sales. And even more surprising to chocolate lovers is that Dagoba Chocolate, which had a little cult chocolate following for a while, is surprise, surprise, owned by Hershey Foods.
There seems to be an apt analogy between the huge growth in the "naturalization" of packaged goods in grocery stores and supermarket aisles and the massive transformation of organic fresh foods. Organic farming began as a grassroots movement to produce food that was healthier and better for the land. But it is now a huge, $20 billion industry, increasingly dominated by large agribusiness companies. Furthermore, when the government certifies food as "organic," it has nothing to do with the original values of locally grown produce, workers being treated fairly, etc.
So it may cheer some to know that on the East Coast, McDonald's has served fair-trade-certified Newman's Own organic coffee in stores, while others may cringe at the words of Lee Scott, former CEO of WalMart, when he said, "We are particularly excited about organic food, the fastest-growing category in all of food."
"What's important to keep in mind is that these big corporations are getting into organics not because they have doubts about their prior business practices or doubts about chemical, industrial agriculture," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "They're getting in because they want to make a lot of money -- they want to make it fast." He said the companies couldn't care less about "family farmers making the transition to organic farms."
What does this all mean? One conclusion it is easy to come to is that big food companies and the stores and supermarkets that deliver their goods have stretched and abused descriptions of food until they are sometimes almost meaningless, and consumers believe that they are getting more benefits than they actually are. Consumers "walk down the aisle in the grocery stores' health and beauty area, and they're confronted with 'natural' at every turn," says Daniel Fabricant, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Natural Products Association. "We just don't want to see the term misused any longer."
On the other hand, Roger Cowe, a financial commentator states: "If you want to change what people consume on a grand scale, you have to penetrate mass markets. And you can't do that if you're a small, specialist brand stuck in the organic or whole-food niche, even if that means you are on supermarket shelves. It is a familiar dilemma: stay pure and have a big impact on a small scale, or compromise and have a small impact on a grand scale."
Some think that socially responsible business sellers don't lose it all when selling out. Both Craig Sams from Green and Black chocolate and the late Anita Roddick from the Body Shop ( sold to L'Oreal/Nestle -- one of the most vilified of multinational companies) have said that they believe that an acquired ethical company can influence its new parent to improve its corporate behavior.
Others are not so positive about this turn of events. Judy Wickes from the Social Venture Network describes corporate takeovers of socially responsible businesses as "a threat to democracy when wealth and power are concentrated into a few hands." And David Korten, in his book, When Corporations Rule the World, explained how sustainable business "should be human scale -- not necessarily tiny firms, but preferably not more than 500 people -- always with a bias to smaller is better."
It is clear that so-called organic brands are a rapidly growing portion of the consumer dollar, and that every major food corporation has invested deeply in buying these already-established brands.
Marketing strategies have been fooling us to trust that the niche brands continue to be small, environmentally conscious businesses that combine ecologically sound practices with a political agenda to put products out on the market under a business model of "the Greater Good."
In fact, they are frequently cogs in the giant corporate wheel. I like to refer to this "other" business model as "We've Been Had." It is time for we, the consumer, to question how much the ownership and neglectful marketing of these "pseudo" responsible brands warrant crossing them off our shopping list.
And it is time to find products more in tune with our values, which include thinking small. At least until they, too, get bought out by some large conglomerate.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Obvious Cruelty of Keeping Chimpanzees in Captivity: Will it Ever End?
I’ll let this opening quote from the story below state it all: “Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.”
Overall, a great article that points out the obvious.
Article:
Chimps R Us: How Much Longer Are We Going to Keep Our Cousins as Pets?
http://www.alternet.org/story/131900/chimps_r_us%3A_how_much_longer_are_we_going_to_keep_our_cousins_as_pets/
By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.
A life of captivity is too cruel for chimpanzees and dangerous for their owners. We should give them the freedoms we grant ourselves.
Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.
The gruesome attack by an adult chimpanzee on its Connecticut owner last month provided a vivid reminder of why Congress should impose a complete ban on keeping chimps as pets. .
Twenty states still permit this dubious instance of animal loving. Last month, the House has passed a bill ending this option. Now the Senate must do the same. The debate in Congress centers on practical reasons against keeping chimpanzees. They are simply too dangerous to live alongside humans; and caring for them properly, in a private home, is virtually impossible.
The utilitarian case against pet ownership obscures a wider moral lesson about relations between chimpanzees and their human kin. They are too much like us not to be included in our what intellectual historian David Hollinger calls "the circle of we.".
A close genetic relative to humans, chimpanzees are intelligent, sensitive, solve problems and form coherent social relationships. They plan, they improvise, they endure. For those who closely study or assist chimpanzees, either in the wild or in African sanctuaries, come to believe, as I do, that chimpanzees are as glorious as humans -- and deserve to exist on some roughly equal plane as us.
"Chimpanzees deserve to be treated with the same dignity as a human being," says Sheri Speede, an Oregon veterinarian who runs a large chimp sanctuary in the West African country of Cameroon. "They are entitled to the same quality of life as we are."
If Speede is correct, should not chimpanzees be as free as humans? Should the nation debate -- with the same energy shown in the national conversation over the practice of keeping chimpanzees as pets -- ending the incarceration of the 269 chimpanzees now captive in 35 American zoos?
I perhaps have no standing to ask this question. I am not an expert in chimpanzees, nor have I been a militant defender of their rights and entitlements. At least not for very long.
My first close encounter with a chimpanzee came eight years ago. On a whim, I visited the zoo in Accra, Ghana. I saw an African woman inside a small enclosure, playing with an orphaned 1-year-old chimpanzee named Jimmy. Hunters had killed his mother.
The woman, named Chizo, was his surrogate mother. She joined Jimmy in his cage -- under the supervision of a primate expert from Europe -- bringing him some measure of natural development, since unrelated chimpanzees would not likely befriend him.
Baby chimpanzees are smarter than humans at the same age, research has shown (and orphaned chimps, given human care can be even smarter; one study, published in February, found that such chimps recorded higher scores on IQ tests than many human infants). As I returned to the zoo in successive days in order to strike up a friendship with Chizo, I came to agree with the scientific consensus, marveling at Jimmy's intelligence.
He quickly concluded, for instance, that I was a rival for Chizo's attention. And with an eerie insight, the afternoon that I first asked her on a date, Jimmy mounted a vigorous effort to prevent her from departing his cage, blocking the escape door over and over, even threatening to break out with her.
He kept me waiting on the other side of the bars. Time and again, I thought he'd planned this whole stalemate, simply to upset me. (Indeed, researchers in Sweden this month published a study documenting the "contingency plans" made by one adult chimp in a Swedish zoo.)
Chizo worked closely with Jimmy more than a year. Their partnership was ended by Chizo's decision move with me to the U.S. Before we left Ghana, we both felt sorrow over leaving Jimmy behind.
An effort by a global network of chimpanzees activists failed to secure Jimmy's release to a sanctuary, where he could live in a natural environment, while still under the protection of humans. After we settled in the U.S., another serious attempt was made to gain Jimmy's release, but again the government of Ghana refused.
The recent controversy over pet chimpanzees made me think about the hundreds of chimps in zoos in America and around the world -- and of Jimmy, too. He remains in a zoo in Ghana, although he's been joined by another orphan, a younger female, also rescued and brought to the zoo after the slaughter by hunters of her parents.
In September, Chizo and I visited Jimmy and his new friend. Jimmy instantly recognized Chizo from a distance of more than 100 feet. Jimmy, now 7 years old, is too big and strong to permit Chizo to join him in his cage. Yet they played anyway, hugging and dancing separated by steel bars. Jimmy showed off, jumping from a high perch onto a trampoline and doing endless somersaults.
He remembered me, too, though with less affection. Shrewdly drawing close to him by extending one hand in friendship, I approached the bars, looked in the eyes -- and then watched in astonishment as he three a hand full of waste at me. I ducked, adroitly, causing him to miss.
For a few hours, we played a game of cat and mouse. He drew me closer through acts of kindness, and then turned against me. Sometimes, he tossed waste at me with an unnerving accuracy, other times he spat in my direction.
Those days visiting Jimmy in the Kumasi zoo convinced me that, while he could not understand why Chizo and I had vanished from his life, he had felt long and hard our absence -- and now celebrated our return.
Before I departed, I asked the zoo director might he ever release Jimmy? I offered, as others have before, to arrange his transfer to sanctuary -- a kind of "gated community" where chimps experience something akin to living in the wild, yet are protected from hunters, each other and truly wild chimps who might attack them with lethal force.
I've visited Speede's sanctuary in Cameroon and seen up close the excellent care the chimps receive -- and their happy communion with each other and the forest. There are two other chimpanzee sanctuaries in this West African country, and together they are searching for land where a select group of their chimps can be released into a freer environment.
Releasing chimps, grown accustomed to the comforts of a sanctuary, is fraught; their survival skills diminished, these chimps can fall prey to other animals, hunters or even disease.
Speede, for instance, gives chimps medical care, and her sanctuary has special fencing, even at the canopy of the forest, to keep wild chimps from mounting attacks.
Lovers of chimpanzees worry of course that these human relatives are doomed to extinction as the lush forests they inhabit get cut down by loggers, bisected by roads and infiltrated by hunters. Trade in so-called bush meat, while illegal and constrained, continues. Demand comes from wealthier city dwellers, some of whom live in Europe or America.
Speede believes that sanctuaries -- and "release" programs of the sort she's preparing -- may be the only means of preventing the ultimate destruction of chimpanzees and their extraordinary ways of being.
If she's right, should Americans consider supporting such sanctuaries rather than the zoos where we now visit chimpanzees? In the case of Jimmy, I'm certain he would prefer to live in one of the two dozen sanctuaries around Africa. His cage in Ghana is small and has a cold concrete floor. The zoo director's desire for Jimmy to impregnate a female at the zoo strikes me as unwise. Given the longevity of chimps, Jimmy could easily live 30 or more years in his cage -- outliving me, easily, yet serving as a source of amusement and education for visitors to the Kumasi Zoo.
"He's our top attraction," the zoo director told me, when he once more rejected the idea of letting Jimmy go.
To free the 269 chimpanzees in American zoos is perhaps less urgent, because these zoos long ago switched to larger, more flexible enclosures that produce an illusion of open space. I do not doubt that the 269 chimpanzees residing in these advanced enclosures are unaware of their captivity.
The question is how long can we, the jailers, allow that to continue?
Overall, a great article that points out the obvious.
Article:
Chimps R Us: How Much Longer Are We Going to Keep Our Cousins as Pets?
http://www.alternet.org/story/131900/chimps_r_us%3A_how_much_longer_are_we_going_to_keep_our_cousins_as_pets/
By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.
A life of captivity is too cruel for chimpanzees and dangerous for their owners. We should give them the freedoms we grant ourselves.
Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.
The gruesome attack by an adult chimpanzee on its Connecticut owner last month provided a vivid reminder of why Congress should impose a complete ban on keeping chimps as pets. .
Twenty states still permit this dubious instance of animal loving. Last month, the House has passed a bill ending this option. Now the Senate must do the same. The debate in Congress centers on practical reasons against keeping chimpanzees. They are simply too dangerous to live alongside humans; and caring for them properly, in a private home, is virtually impossible.
The utilitarian case against pet ownership obscures a wider moral lesson about relations between chimpanzees and their human kin. They are too much like us not to be included in our what intellectual historian David Hollinger calls "the circle of we.".
A close genetic relative to humans, chimpanzees are intelligent, sensitive, solve problems and form coherent social relationships. They plan, they improvise, they endure. For those who closely study or assist chimpanzees, either in the wild or in African sanctuaries, come to believe, as I do, that chimpanzees are as glorious as humans -- and deserve to exist on some roughly equal plane as us.
"Chimpanzees deserve to be treated with the same dignity as a human being," says Sheri Speede, an Oregon veterinarian who runs a large chimp sanctuary in the West African country of Cameroon. "They are entitled to the same quality of life as we are."
If Speede is correct, should not chimpanzees be as free as humans? Should the nation debate -- with the same energy shown in the national conversation over the practice of keeping chimpanzees as pets -- ending the incarceration of the 269 chimpanzees now captive in 35 American zoos?
I perhaps have no standing to ask this question. I am not an expert in chimpanzees, nor have I been a militant defender of their rights and entitlements. At least not for very long.
My first close encounter with a chimpanzee came eight years ago. On a whim, I visited the zoo in Accra, Ghana. I saw an African woman inside a small enclosure, playing with an orphaned 1-year-old chimpanzee named Jimmy. Hunters had killed his mother.
The woman, named Chizo, was his surrogate mother. She joined Jimmy in his cage -- under the supervision of a primate expert from Europe -- bringing him some measure of natural development, since unrelated chimpanzees would not likely befriend him.
Baby chimpanzees are smarter than humans at the same age, research has shown (and orphaned chimps, given human care can be even smarter; one study, published in February, found that such chimps recorded higher scores on IQ tests than many human infants). As I returned to the zoo in successive days in order to strike up a friendship with Chizo, I came to agree with the scientific consensus, marveling at Jimmy's intelligence.
He quickly concluded, for instance, that I was a rival for Chizo's attention. And with an eerie insight, the afternoon that I first asked her on a date, Jimmy mounted a vigorous effort to prevent her from departing his cage, blocking the escape door over and over, even threatening to break out with her.
He kept me waiting on the other side of the bars. Time and again, I thought he'd planned this whole stalemate, simply to upset me. (Indeed, researchers in Sweden this month published a study documenting the "contingency plans" made by one adult chimp in a Swedish zoo.)
Chizo worked closely with Jimmy more than a year. Their partnership was ended by Chizo's decision move with me to the U.S. Before we left Ghana, we both felt sorrow over leaving Jimmy behind.
An effort by a global network of chimpanzees activists failed to secure Jimmy's release to a sanctuary, where he could live in a natural environment, while still under the protection of humans. After we settled in the U.S., another serious attempt was made to gain Jimmy's release, but again the government of Ghana refused.
The recent controversy over pet chimpanzees made me think about the hundreds of chimps in zoos in America and around the world -- and of Jimmy, too. He remains in a zoo in Ghana, although he's been joined by another orphan, a younger female, also rescued and brought to the zoo after the slaughter by hunters of her parents.
In September, Chizo and I visited Jimmy and his new friend. Jimmy instantly recognized Chizo from a distance of more than 100 feet. Jimmy, now 7 years old, is too big and strong to permit Chizo to join him in his cage. Yet they played anyway, hugging and dancing separated by steel bars. Jimmy showed off, jumping from a high perch onto a trampoline and doing endless somersaults.
He remembered me, too, though with less affection. Shrewdly drawing close to him by extending one hand in friendship, I approached the bars, looked in the eyes -- and then watched in astonishment as he three a hand full of waste at me. I ducked, adroitly, causing him to miss.
For a few hours, we played a game of cat and mouse. He drew me closer through acts of kindness, and then turned against me. Sometimes, he tossed waste at me with an unnerving accuracy, other times he spat in my direction.
Those days visiting Jimmy in the Kumasi zoo convinced me that, while he could not understand why Chizo and I had vanished from his life, he had felt long and hard our absence -- and now celebrated our return.
Before I departed, I asked the zoo director might he ever release Jimmy? I offered, as others have before, to arrange his transfer to sanctuary -- a kind of "gated community" where chimps experience something akin to living in the wild, yet are protected from hunters, each other and truly wild chimps who might attack them with lethal force.
I've visited Speede's sanctuary in Cameroon and seen up close the excellent care the chimps receive -- and their happy communion with each other and the forest. There are two other chimpanzee sanctuaries in this West African country, and together they are searching for land where a select group of their chimps can be released into a freer environment.
Releasing chimps, grown accustomed to the comforts of a sanctuary, is fraught; their survival skills diminished, these chimps can fall prey to other animals, hunters or even disease.
Speede, for instance, gives chimps medical care, and her sanctuary has special fencing, even at the canopy of the forest, to keep wild chimps from mounting attacks.
Lovers of chimpanzees worry of course that these human relatives are doomed to extinction as the lush forests they inhabit get cut down by loggers, bisected by roads and infiltrated by hunters. Trade in so-called bush meat, while illegal and constrained, continues. Demand comes from wealthier city dwellers, some of whom live in Europe or America.
Speede believes that sanctuaries -- and "release" programs of the sort she's preparing -- may be the only means of preventing the ultimate destruction of chimpanzees and their extraordinary ways of being.
If she's right, should Americans consider supporting such sanctuaries rather than the zoos where we now visit chimpanzees? In the case of Jimmy, I'm certain he would prefer to live in one of the two dozen sanctuaries around Africa. His cage in Ghana is small and has a cold concrete floor. The zoo director's desire for Jimmy to impregnate a female at the zoo strikes me as unwise. Given the longevity of chimps, Jimmy could easily live 30 or more years in his cage -- outliving me, easily, yet serving as a source of amusement and education for visitors to the Kumasi Zoo.
"He's our top attraction," the zoo director told me, when he once more rejected the idea of letting Jimmy go.
To free the 269 chimpanzees in American zoos is perhaps less urgent, because these zoos long ago switched to larger, more flexible enclosures that produce an illusion of open space. I do not doubt that the 269 chimpanzees residing in these advanced enclosures are unaware of their captivity.
The question is how long can we, the jailers, allow that to continue?
Cruel Australia will Resort to Shooting Kangaroos to Deal with Population Issues
Again, a group taking a very limited view of how to deal with an issue. Going straight to the “let’s kill it away” proposal.
Article:
Kangaroos in the firing line in Australia
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_shooting_kangaroos_3
By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer Rod Mcguirk, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 17, 7:48 am ET
Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia AP – Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia Oct. 23, 2006. An official …
CANBERRA, Australia – Australia's capital is plagued by too many kangaroos, and the best solution is to shoot them, an official said Tuesday. Horrified conservationists vowed to demonstrate if authorities followed through.
Canberra has among the densest populations of the common eastern gray kangaroo in Australia, and they are regularly seen hopping in parks and other places around the city.
The kangaroo is a national emblem of Australia, but it can also be a nuisance. The animals munching grass and shrubs around Canberra are degrading their own habitats and adding to threats posed to rare insects and lizards.
Kangaroos hopping across streets are a frequent traffic hazard in the city, and they can pose other problems — as one family in the area discovered last week when a confused and panicked kangaroo leapt through a bedroom window and bounded around the house until it was thrust out the front door.
Jon Stanhope, the chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory where Canberra is located, released a draft plan Tuesday describing how his government would reduce numbers the city's kangaroo population by shooting them — a method that has long divided this community of 330,000 people.
The plan does not say how many kangaroos should be killed.
Supporters say the absence of more effective biological controls leaves shooting as the most humane way to control kangaroo numbers.
"There are probably more eastern gray kangaroos in Canberra now than any time in the last 100 years," Stanhope told reporters. "I think we have perhaps tried too hard not to cull."
The population of kangaroos in the area is hard to determine because the animals move frequently, according to the availability of grass and water.
The territory's government has been involved since 1998 in research to develop an oral contraceptive for kangaroos but none is yet effective in the wild.
Stanhope said the research to develop humane alternatives to shooting would be encouraged.
The report ruled out trapping and trucking kangaroos to where they are less abundant because the process was expensive, unproven and illogical given there was no threat to the species' survival.
Pat O'Brien, president of the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, warned that authorities would be met by protests if they tried to shoot kangaroos.
"The whole thing is a propaganda exercise to try to get public support for killing kangaroos," O'Brien said. Kangaroo number were high, "but there's certainly not too many of them."
The killing of 400 kangaroos out of 600 at an abandoned military site in Canberra last year triggered several heated protests.
Those kangaroos were killed with lethal injections because firearms were judged to be too dangerous at the site, which was within Canberra's city limits.
Recent government surveys said some 17 percent of Canberra drivers had reported colliding with a kangaroo at sometime in the past, though 82 percent of respondents considered it important that wild kangaroos continue to live in the city.
Article:
Kangaroos in the firing line in Australia
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_shooting_kangaroos_3
By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer Rod Mcguirk, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 17, 7:48 am ET
Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia AP – Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia Oct. 23, 2006. An official …
CANBERRA, Australia – Australia's capital is plagued by too many kangaroos, and the best solution is to shoot them, an official said Tuesday. Horrified conservationists vowed to demonstrate if authorities followed through.
Canberra has among the densest populations of the common eastern gray kangaroo in Australia, and they are regularly seen hopping in parks and other places around the city.
The kangaroo is a national emblem of Australia, but it can also be a nuisance. The animals munching grass and shrubs around Canberra are degrading their own habitats and adding to threats posed to rare insects and lizards.
Kangaroos hopping across streets are a frequent traffic hazard in the city, and they can pose other problems — as one family in the area discovered last week when a confused and panicked kangaroo leapt through a bedroom window and bounded around the house until it was thrust out the front door.
Jon Stanhope, the chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory where Canberra is located, released a draft plan Tuesday describing how his government would reduce numbers the city's kangaroo population by shooting them — a method that has long divided this community of 330,000 people.
The plan does not say how many kangaroos should be killed.
Supporters say the absence of more effective biological controls leaves shooting as the most humane way to control kangaroo numbers.
"There are probably more eastern gray kangaroos in Canberra now than any time in the last 100 years," Stanhope told reporters. "I think we have perhaps tried too hard not to cull."
The population of kangaroos in the area is hard to determine because the animals move frequently, according to the availability of grass and water.
The territory's government has been involved since 1998 in research to develop an oral contraceptive for kangaroos but none is yet effective in the wild.
Stanhope said the research to develop humane alternatives to shooting would be encouraged.
The report ruled out trapping and trucking kangaroos to where they are less abundant because the process was expensive, unproven and illogical given there was no threat to the species' survival.
Pat O'Brien, president of the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, warned that authorities would be met by protests if they tried to shoot kangaroos.
"The whole thing is a propaganda exercise to try to get public support for killing kangaroos," O'Brien said. Kangaroo number were high, "but there's certainly not too many of them."
The killing of 400 kangaroos out of 600 at an abandoned military site in Canberra last year triggered several heated protests.
Those kangaroos were killed with lethal injections because firearms were judged to be too dangerous at the site, which was within Canberra's city limits.
Recent government surveys said some 17 percent of Canberra drivers had reported colliding with a kangaroo at sometime in the past, though 82 percent of respondents considered it important that wild kangaroos continue to live in the city.
Lion Shot and Killed at Australian Zoo
Just another posting in the “why zoos are unnatural and unnecessary” segment.
Article:
Lion shot after escaping Australian zoo enclosure
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_as/as_australia_lion_escape_1
Wed Mar 18, 3:43 am ET
SYDNEY – A lioness was fatally shot after breaking out of its enclosure at an Australian zoo and forcing visitors to hide in nearby buildings, a zoo official said Wednesday.
The 9-year-old lioness was shot on Tuesday by an employee of Mogo Zoo in Mogo, about 190 miles (300 kilometers) south of Sydney, the zoo's business manager John Appleby said.
The lion, named Jameila, never reached a public area, but officials were concerned the animal might and decided to shoot it, Appleby said.
"She was moving quite slowly towards a public area, but under the circumstances a decision was made to put her down," he said. "Because it was a lion, it was considered a dangerous animal, and protocol is if there is any potential risk to the public a decision would be made."
Zoo officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment on how the animal escaped its enclosure.
About 30 people were visiting the zoo when the lion broke loose. After being alerted by zoo officials about the escape, visitors hid in buildings throughout the grounds until the animal was killed, Appleby said.
"I wouldn't say there was any panic — I think it was all very controlled," he said.
Staff members were devastated by the death of the cat, which was born at the zoo.
"It's an absolute loss," Appleby said. "The team are still quite upset."
Article:
Lion shot after escaping Australian zoo enclosure
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_as/as_australia_lion_escape_1
Wed Mar 18, 3:43 am ET
SYDNEY – A lioness was fatally shot after breaking out of its enclosure at an Australian zoo and forcing visitors to hide in nearby buildings, a zoo official said Wednesday.
The 9-year-old lioness was shot on Tuesday by an employee of Mogo Zoo in Mogo, about 190 miles (300 kilometers) south of Sydney, the zoo's business manager John Appleby said.
The lion, named Jameila, never reached a public area, but officials were concerned the animal might and decided to shoot it, Appleby said.
"She was moving quite slowly towards a public area, but under the circumstances a decision was made to put her down," he said. "Because it was a lion, it was considered a dangerous animal, and protocol is if there is any potential risk to the public a decision would be made."
Zoo officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment on how the animal escaped its enclosure.
About 30 people were visiting the zoo when the lion broke loose. After being alerted by zoo officials about the escape, visitors hid in buildings throughout the grounds until the animal was killed, Appleby said.
"I wouldn't say there was any panic — I think it was all very controlled," he said.
Staff members were devastated by the death of the cat, which was born at the zoo.
"It's an absolute loss," Appleby said. "The team are still quite upset."
Friday, February 27, 2009
Threat to Society, Famous Animal Abuser, Convicted Felon, Convicted Dog Fighting Operation Leader Michael Vick to Soon be Released to Home Confinement
Here we go again. A rich famous animal abuser who doesn’t finish his time due to his money and connections. As we all remember, former NFL star Michael Vick was convicted of horrible crimes against dogs, as he operated a dog fighting ring.
For those who have forgotten, please visit our story about his the Michael Vick 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
Seems the excuse is that he will go home due to no bed space at a halfway house. Not a believable story at all. I’m guessing that his fame and money led to this situation. So, literally, a Threat to Society, Famous Animal Abuser, Convicted Felon, Convicted Dog Fighting Operation Leader will go home after a short time in jail to his comfy bed.
Article:
Dogfighting former NFL star Michael Vick preparing for home confinement
http://www.caymanmama.com/2009/02/26/michael-vick-home-confinement_200902264160.html
Imprisoned NFL player and convicted dog fighter Michael Vick has been approved for early release to home confinement, as per a government official
Jackson, Mississippi (CaymanMama.com) –Animal rights activists will not be happy to learn that imprisoned NFL player Michael Vick has been approved for early release to home confinement, as per a government official.
According to USA Today, “Vick’s lawyers have said they expected him to be moved any day into a halfway house in Newport News, Va. But the official says there’s no bed space, so Vick could be released to his Hampton, Va. home as soon as May 21st.”
The former Atlanta Falcons quarterback will be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device and will only be allowed to leave his home for approved activities through his probation officer.
Vick created a wave of outrage after he was convicted of a dogfighting conspiracy and is currently serving a 23-month sentence at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan.
For those who have forgotten, please visit our story about his the Michael Vick 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
Seems the excuse is that he will go home due to no bed space at a halfway house. Not a believable story at all. I’m guessing that his fame and money led to this situation. So, literally, a Threat to Society, Famous Animal Abuser, Convicted Felon, Convicted Dog Fighting Operation Leader will go home after a short time in jail to his comfy bed.
Article:
Dogfighting former NFL star Michael Vick preparing for home confinement
http://www.caymanmama.com/2009/02/26/michael-vick-home-confinement_200902264160.html
Imprisoned NFL player and convicted dog fighter Michael Vick has been approved for early release to home confinement, as per a government official
Jackson, Mississippi (CaymanMama.com) –Animal rights activists will not be happy to learn that imprisoned NFL player Michael Vick has been approved for early release to home confinement, as per a government official.
According to USA Today, “Vick’s lawyers have said they expected him to be moved any day into a halfway house in Newport News, Va. But the official says there’s no bed space, so Vick could be released to his Hampton, Va. home as soon as May 21st.”
The former Atlanta Falcons quarterback will be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device and will only be allowed to leave his home for approved activities through his probation officer.
Vick created a wave of outrage after he was convicted of a dogfighting conspiracy and is currently serving a 23-month sentence at the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan.
Website Exposes Truth of Cruelty behind Greyhound Racing: Videos, Pictures and Fact Sheets Educate on Why Shouldn’t Support Greyhound Racing Industry
I’ll let the website speak for itself. You can’t argue with videos and pictures.
Please visit http://www.greyhoundaction.org.uk/igreyhound.html to view the Fact Sheet section and learn more about the cruelty of greyhound racing and the cruelty of the greyhound racing industry.
Please visit http://www.greyhoundaction.org.uk/igreyhound.html to view the Fact Sheet section and learn more about the cruelty of greyhound racing and the cruelty of the greyhound racing industry.
Famous Vegetarians and Vegans Honored at Web Page - Vegetarians We Love: Macho Men Who Don't Eat Meat
Another great web page dedicated to famous vegetarians and vegans - Vegetarians We Love: Macho Men Who Don't Eat Meat - http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/01/vegetarians-we-love.php?page=1
GEARI has also published a page with links to quotes from famous people regarding animal rights and vegetarianism and veganism - http://www.geari.org/famous-animal-rights-quotes.html
GEARI has also published a page with links to quotes from famous people regarding animal rights and vegetarianism and veganism - http://www.geari.org/famous-animal-rights-quotes.html
The University of Michigan Medical School Ends Live Dog Lab: Now Help End Live Animal Use at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
Many of you have probably heard the good news regarding University of Michigan ending its live dog lab. This good news has also been verified via the UM Medical School site at http://www2.med.umich.edu/prmc/media/newsroom/details.cfm?ID=1057
In a letter sent by PCRM, it seems that the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is still caught in the past via its use of live animals - vivisection. If you read the email I pasted below you’ll see how you can help this school step into current non-animal teaching methods.
For those of you who would like to learn more about alternatives to animal testing and vivisection, including what non-animal methods are available, please visit our page on alternatives to animal testing and vivisection at – http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html
One such method mentioned below and used extensively is the TraumaMan System from Simulab. You can learn more about this at http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm06spring/life_or_death.html
Please read on below about the use of live animals at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey (UMDNJ) and how you can help end such archaic practices.
You have sent more than 20,000 e-mails to University of Michigan (U-M) administrators, asking them to use nonanimal training methods in their Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course. The school’s Graduate Medical Education Committee recently met and decided that it agrees with you. No dogs or other animals will be killed in the school’s ATLS course, according to a university statement.
Your hard work helped end animal suffering and improve medical education in Michigan. Now we need your help to do the same thing in New Jersey. While more than 90 percent of United States and Canadian facilities no longer use animals for ATLS training, University Hospital in Newark, part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), continues to use live pigs for its course, despite the availability of nonanimal alternatives like the TraumaMan System from Simulab. The hospital’s next ATLS course is scheduled for March 13.
Please e-mail, call, or write to UMDNJ president William Owen Jr., M.D., and politely ask him to end animal use in University Hospital’s ATLS course. Being polite is the most effective way to help these animals. Send an automatic e-mail.
William Owen Jr., M.D.
President
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
65 Bergen St., Room 1535
University Heights
Newark, NJ 07107-3007
Phone: 973-972-4400
E-mail: wfowenmd@umdnj.edu
In a letter sent by PCRM, it seems that the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) is still caught in the past via its use of live animals - vivisection. If you read the email I pasted below you’ll see how you can help this school step into current non-animal teaching methods.
For those of you who would like to learn more about alternatives to animal testing and vivisection, including what non-animal methods are available, please visit our page on alternatives to animal testing and vivisection at – http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html
One such method mentioned below and used extensively is the TraumaMan System from Simulab. You can learn more about this at http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm06spring/life_or_death.html
Please read on below about the use of live animals at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey (UMDNJ) and how you can help end such archaic practices.
You have sent more than 20,000 e-mails to University of Michigan (U-M) administrators, asking them to use nonanimal training methods in their Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course. The school’s Graduate Medical Education Committee recently met and decided that it agrees with you. No dogs or other animals will be killed in the school’s ATLS course, according to a university statement.
Your hard work helped end animal suffering and improve medical education in Michigan. Now we need your help to do the same thing in New Jersey. While more than 90 percent of United States and Canadian facilities no longer use animals for ATLS training, University Hospital in Newark, part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), continues to use live pigs for its course, despite the availability of nonanimal alternatives like the TraumaMan System from Simulab. The hospital’s next ATLS course is scheduled for March 13.
Please e-mail, call, or write to UMDNJ president William Owen Jr., M.D., and politely ask him to end animal use in University Hospital’s ATLS course. Being polite is the most effective way to help these animals. Send an automatic e-mail.
William Owen Jr., M.D.
President
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
65 Bergen St., Room 1535
University Heights
Newark, NJ 07107-3007
Phone: 973-972-4400
E-mail: wfowenmd@umdnj.edu
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Calgary Zoo Admits the Obvious: to Blame for Deaths of 41 Cownose Stingrays
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."
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."
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search for More Content
Custom Search
