Compromises Their Supposed Ethics By Selling Out to a Company Without Ethics in Regard to Animals.
Disgusting how these things work. I guess Tom’s of Maine wasn’t happy enough with $50 million in sales a year. They just had to sell out in order to retire early I guess.
They join a long line of 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.
They too went to an animal testing company – L’Oreal.
So, all to animal testing companies. Who would have known 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 article below discusses this issue. Well worth reading. By the way, PETA supports the sell out. I hope they’re right in their reasoning. Regardless, Tom’s of Maine will now go down as compromising their supposed ethics by selling out to a company without ethics in regard to animals.
So, the old argument arises: if you support a product that itself is not tested on animals but made by a company that tests on animals are you supporting animal testing?
As you’ll see in the list of companies that test on animals, Colgate-Palmolive, Unilever and Altria still test on animals - http://www.caringconsumer.com/page/CompaniesDo.pdf.
Article:
Tom's Deal With the Devil
By Adrian Rush (TMF Adrian) March 22, 2006
Is socially responsible investing possible ?The perennial question comes to the fore once again with news that Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE: CL) has purchased a controlling stake in little Tom's of Maine, a brand known as much for its personal-care products as for its social conscience.
Tom's brand is a mainstay in our house. We've made a deliberate decision to use the company's toothpaste and deodorant products because, as ethically based vegetarians, we know that Tom's neither uses animal-derived ingredients in its products nor tests on animals. Yes, my wife and I are a couple of those odd birds who stand in the aisles at the grocery store and read the ingredients on the side of the box to make sure that what we're buying didn't cause any little beasties to suffer. Hey, we all make our choices in life, and this has been one of ours.
And now we, and probably many other Tom's of Maine fans, have mixed feelings about the Colgate purchase and are left with a dilemma on our hands ... and our teeth, and our underarms.It's not the first time something like this has happened.
In the food space, Kraft (NYSE: KFT) has swallowed up Boca, famous for its veggie burgers. And perhaps most famously, Ben & Jerry's sold itself out to Unilever (NYSE: UL).
I can hear you already: "And this is a problem, why?" Well, purely from an investing standpoint, there are winners all around. Small, niche companies get to expand their reach and ensure their continued existence with the weight of megacorporations behind them. And the conglomerates snag a piece of the increasingly popular natural-products market.
In Colgate's case, the purchase of Tom's was a no-brainer. Tom's generates only about $50 million in sales a year -- a pittance next to Colgate's $11.4 billion in sales in 2005 -- but Tom's profit margins are 10 percentage points higher than Colgate's. Plus, Colgate gets to tap in to the market for natural personal-care products, a market that Colgate itself places at $3 billion and growing at a 15% annual clip. Tom's, on the other hand, wins because it can use Colgate's massive marketing and distribution network to work its way into more chain markets -- though it's already well known at places such as Whole Foods (Nasdaq: WFMI) -- and can thereby gain more visibility and, ultimately, more sales.But what does such a move cost in terms of integrity and social responsibility?
Here's where things get tricky for the socially responsible investor. When you buy a Boca burger, you support Kraft. And when you do that, you support tobacco king Altria (NYSE: MO), which owns 85% of Kraft.
Likewise, when you buy a pint of Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey ice cream, you're sending money to Unilever, which gets a decidedly mixed review from SRI watchdog groups.
And now when you buy a Tom's of Maine product, you'll be backing Colgate, which tests its oral-care products on animals -- tests that ultimately involve the demise of those animals. Now, in Colgate's defense, it's only following the Food and Drug Administration's standard monograph for testing anti-cavity substances. But these are the types of concerns that investors must grapple with when their consciences tell them that "due diligence" means more than just examining the numbers.
For what it's worth, Mary Beth Sweetland, senior vice president for research and investigations at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, told me in an email that PETA is "quite excited" by the Colgate buyout -- and that's saying something when you consider how tenacious PETA can be when a company is doing something it doesn't like. Turns out PETA has been in talks with Colgate since 1997, and the company in response has maintained a moratorium on animal testing in its line of adult personal-care products -- excluding oral care. What's more, Sweetland wrote, "We have faith that Colgate will do the right thing and follow Tom's lead on the animal-testing issue." Meanwhile, Tom's, the first company to win FDA approval of its fluoride toothpastes without involving the testing of animals, will maintain its commitment to making 100% critter-friendly products and, just as importantly, will continue its philanthropic endeavors.
So, to answer the opening question -- is socially responsible investing possible? -- it seems that the answer is probably different for everybody. Chances are very good that somewhere amidst the interconnected webs of publicly traded companies, you're going to find something that leaves your conscience a little bit unsettled, whether it's an issue with animal testing, labor practices, environmental sustainability, or something else.
For example, we use Silk soy milk in our house, even though Silk's parent company, White Wave, is a subsidiary of Dean Foods (NYSE: DF). And by indirectly supporting Dean, we're also supporting the dairy industry, which in turn keeps the veal industry in business. And that's a dilemma for any lover of animals.
We all make our deals with the devil. It's just a question of how much we're willing to concede. And that's a question that all investors have to answer for themselves.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Sorry, No Posts Today: Will be Back at it Tomorrow:
News was very light anyway. Thankfully for all. What that means is no real pressing issues. Always nice to see that.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Humans Responsible for the Worst Spate of Extinctions Since Dinosaurs: Must Make Unprecedented Extra Efforts to Reach a Goal Of Slowing Losses by 2010
Yeah, I’m sure we’ll make those changes. I seriously doubt it. Unfortunately.
Here’s just a quick quote from the article below. Really sums it up:
"In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared, 65 million years ago," said the 92-page Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 report.
Not good. Not good at all.
Article:
Humans spur worst extinctions since dinosaurs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060320/ts_nm/
environment_diversity_dc
By Alister Doyle, Environment CorrespondentMon Mar 20, 12:23 PM ET
Humans are responsible for the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs and must make unprecedented extra efforts to reach a goal of slowing losses by 2010, a U.N. report said on Monday.
Habitats ranging from coral reefs to tropical rainforests face mounting threats, the Secretariat of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity said in the report, issued at the start of a March 20-31 U.N. meeting in Curitiba, Brazil.
"In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared, 65 million years ago," said the 92-page Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 report.
Apart from the disappearance of the dinosaurs, the other "Big Five" extinctions were about 205, 250, 375 and 440 million years ago. Scientists suspect that asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions or sudden climate shifts may explain the five.
A rising human population of 6.5 billion was undermining the environment for animals and plants via pollution, expanding cities, deforestation, introduction of "alien species" and global warming, it said.
It estimated the current pace of extinctions was 1,000 times faster than historical rates, jeopardizing a global goal set at a 2002 U.N. summit in Johannesburg "to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss."
"Unprecedented additional efforts' will be needed to achieve the 2010 biodiversity target at national, regional and global levels," it said. The report was bleaker than a first U.N. review of the diversity of life issued in 2001.
NOT ABATING
According to a "Red List" compiled by the World Conservation Union, 844 animals and plants are known to have gone extinct in the last 500 years, ranging from the dodo to the Golden Toad in Costa Rica. It says the figures are probably a big underestimate.
"The direct causes of biodiversity loss -- habitat change, over-exploitation, the introduction of invasive alien species, nutrient loading and climate change -- show no sign of abating," the report said.
Despite the threats, it said the 2010 goal was "by no means an impossible one."
It urged better efforts to safeguard habitats ranging from deserts to jungles and better management of resources from fresh water to timber. About 12 percent of the earth's land surface is in protected areas, against just 0.6 percent of the oceans.
It also recommended more work to curb pollution and to rein in industrial emissions of gases released by burning fossil fuels and widely blamed for global warming.
The report said, for instance, that the annual net loss of forests was 7.3 million hectares (18 million acres) -- an area the size of Panama or Ireland -- from 2000-2005. Still, the figure was slightly less than 8.9 million hectares a year from 1990-2000.
And it said that annual environmental losses from introduced pests in the United States, Australia, Britain, South Africa, India and Brazil had been estimated at more than $100 billion.
About 300 "invasive species" -- molluscs, crustaceans and fish -- have been introduced to the Mediterranean from the Red Sea since the late 19th century when the Suez Canal opened.
It gave mixed overall marks for progress on four key goals.
It said there was "reasonable progress" toward global cooperation but "limited" advances in ensuring enough cash and research. It estimated that annual aid to help slow biodiversity losses sank to $750 million from $1 billion since 1998.
And it said there was "far from sufficient" progress in better planning and implementation of biodiversity decisions and a "mixed" record in better understanding of biodiversity.
Here’s just a quick quote from the article below. Really sums it up:
"In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared, 65 million years ago," said the 92-page Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 report.
Not good. Not good at all.
Article:
Humans spur worst extinctions since dinosaurs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060320/ts_nm/
environment_diversity_dc
By Alister Doyle, Environment CorrespondentMon Mar 20, 12:23 PM ET
Humans are responsible for the worst spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs and must make unprecedented extra efforts to reach a goal of slowing losses by 2010, a U.N. report said on Monday.
Habitats ranging from coral reefs to tropical rainforests face mounting threats, the Secretariat of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity said in the report, issued at the start of a March 20-31 U.N. meeting in Curitiba, Brazil.
"In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared, 65 million years ago," said the 92-page Global Biodiversity Outlook 2 report.
Apart from the disappearance of the dinosaurs, the other "Big Five" extinctions were about 205, 250, 375 and 440 million years ago. Scientists suspect that asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions or sudden climate shifts may explain the five.
A rising human population of 6.5 billion was undermining the environment for animals and plants via pollution, expanding cities, deforestation, introduction of "alien species" and global warming, it said.
It estimated the current pace of extinctions was 1,000 times faster than historical rates, jeopardizing a global goal set at a 2002 U.N. summit in Johannesburg "to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss."
"Unprecedented additional efforts' will be needed to achieve the 2010 biodiversity target at national, regional and global levels," it said. The report was bleaker than a first U.N. review of the diversity of life issued in 2001.
NOT ABATING
According to a "Red List" compiled by the World Conservation Union, 844 animals and plants are known to have gone extinct in the last 500 years, ranging from the dodo to the Golden Toad in Costa Rica. It says the figures are probably a big underestimate.
"The direct causes of biodiversity loss -- habitat change, over-exploitation, the introduction of invasive alien species, nutrient loading and climate change -- show no sign of abating," the report said.
Despite the threats, it said the 2010 goal was "by no means an impossible one."
It urged better efforts to safeguard habitats ranging from deserts to jungles and better management of resources from fresh water to timber. About 12 percent of the earth's land surface is in protected areas, against just 0.6 percent of the oceans.
It also recommended more work to curb pollution and to rein in industrial emissions of gases released by burning fossil fuels and widely blamed for global warming.
The report said, for instance, that the annual net loss of forests was 7.3 million hectares (18 million acres) -- an area the size of Panama or Ireland -- from 2000-2005. Still, the figure was slightly less than 8.9 million hectares a year from 1990-2000.
And it said that annual environmental losses from introduced pests in the United States, Australia, Britain, South Africa, India and Brazil had been estimated at more than $100 billion.
About 300 "invasive species" -- molluscs, crustaceans and fish -- have been introduced to the Mediterranean from the Red Sea since the late 19th century when the Suez Canal opened.
It gave mixed overall marks for progress on four key goals.
It said there was "reasonable progress" toward global cooperation but "limited" advances in ensuring enough cash and research. It estimated that annual aid to help slow biodiversity losses sank to $750 million from $1 billion since 1998.
And it said there was "far from sufficient" progress in better planning and implementation of biodiversity decisions and a "mixed" record in better understanding of biodiversity.
A Labrador Retriever who Saved a Man from Drowning in New Orleans After Hurricane Katrina Finally Honored
I’m glad they finally went back and actually rescued the dog! Amazing that they didn’t do so in the first place. You’d think the person the dog saved would have insisted on it.
Article:
Hero storm dog is star at US animal rights dinner
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx
?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-03-19T085
433Z_01_N19209557_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE
-ANIMALS.xml&archived=False
Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:54 AM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Labrador retriever who saved a man from drowning in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina received a standing ovation on Saturday night at an awards dinner attended by leading animal rights supporters.
The dog, now called Katrina, was brought on stage and named guest of honor at the 20th annual Genesis Awards, given by the Humane Society of the United States to those who help advance the cause of animal rights.
Katrina the dog was featured on a report from Los Angeles television station KCAL. The man she rescued told how the black dog helped pull him from the flood to higher ground and credited her with saving his life.
After broadcasting the report, KCAL sent a team back to New Orleans to rescue the dog.
Seven television stations and networks from around the country were cited for their reporting on animal rescues in New Orleans after the flood. Also cited for special praise was a volunteer, Jane Garrison, who rescued 1,300 animals in the course of just over six weeks, while living in her car.
Among media awards, the Brigitte Bardot international reporting prize went to the Japan Times for breaking a media blackout and reporting in detail how 400,000 dolphins are slaughtered annually off the coast of Japan.
Article:
Hero storm dog is star at US animal rights dinner
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx
?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-03-19T085
433Z_01_N19209557_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE
-ANIMALS.xml&archived=False
Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:54 AM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A Labrador retriever who saved a man from drowning in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina received a standing ovation on Saturday night at an awards dinner attended by leading animal rights supporters.
The dog, now called Katrina, was brought on stage and named guest of honor at the 20th annual Genesis Awards, given by the Humane Society of the United States to those who help advance the cause of animal rights.
Katrina the dog was featured on a report from Los Angeles television station KCAL. The man she rescued told how the black dog helped pull him from the flood to higher ground and credited her with saving his life.
After broadcasting the report, KCAL sent a team back to New Orleans to rescue the dog.
Seven television stations and networks from around the country were cited for their reporting on animal rescues in New Orleans after the flood. Also cited for special praise was a volunteer, Jane Garrison, who rescued 1,300 animals in the course of just over six weeks, while living in her car.
Among media awards, the Brigitte Bardot international reporting prize went to the Japan Times for breaking a media blackout and reporting in detail how 400,000 dolphins are slaughtered annually off the coast of Japan.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Drug that was Tested on Various Non-Human Animals and Deemed Safe Leaves Four Men in Critical Condition in Human Trials: Validity of Animal Testing
Use of Non-Human Animals (Animal Testing) Will Never Provide Fully Accurate Results.
This proves the main argument made by those against the use of animal in drug testing: there are too many physiological differences between the various species to ever provide accurate results in using non-human animals in drug testing. Hence, it’s wasteful and misleading. Just look at this quote from the article below:
“TeGenero, which manufactures the drug, apologised to the sick men's families and said the medicine had shown no signs of problems in earlier tests.
The company's chief scientific officer, Thomas Hanke, said he and his colleagues were "devastated" by what had happened.
He said TGN1412 had been tested extensively in laboratories and on rabbits and monkeys, with no adverse effects and no drug-related deaths.
It was the first time the drug, designed to treat conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia and multiple sclerosis, had been tested on humans.”
Article:
Drug trial four 'are conscious'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4815780.stm
Four men left seriously ill after taking part in a drug trial have regained consciousness, say doctors.
Another two are in a critical condition and under sedation but have shown early signs of responding to treatment, said Dr Ganesh Suntharalingam.
The men suffered multiple organ failure within hours of taking the TGN1412 drug at a research unit based at Northwick Park Hospital in north-west London.
Medical research firm Parexel said its staff followed correct procedures.
Herman Scholtz, head of Parexel, praised staff's swift response when volunteers suffered a reaction during tests of an anti-inflammatory drug.
In a statement, posted on the website of US-based Parexel, Dr Scholtz said: "An initial review at the site has shown that best practices were followed.
I think it's really unfortunate that there might be given an impression that our very ethical drug industry is actually not working according to proper practice
Lord Winston
"We remain in close and constant contact with the Northwick Park Hospital concerning the medical status of the six volunteers."
Dr Suntharalingam, head of intensive care, said: "Some of them have made noticeable progress in response to our treatment and we have been able to reduce the amount of organ support that is required.
"However, it is early days and they will clearly still continue to need specialist observation for some considerable time.
"There are also some very early signs of response to treatment in the most critically ill patients but I must stress that their condition remains very serious and complex and it wouldn't be sensible to comment on prognosis."
On Friday, Labour MP for Brent North, Barry Gardiner, visited the North West London Hospital Trust chief executive Mary Wells, and said there was no better place for the patients to be treated.
He added it was unclear how long the inquiry by the UK medicines watchdog would take.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is investigating whether the reaction suffered by the men was caused by a manufacturing problem, contamination, a dosing error or whether it was some "completely unanticipated side-effect of the drug in humans".
Mr Gardiner said: "MHRA has sealed the offices of Parexel, bagged and taken away all the relevant information, is conducting interviews with Parexel and with their staff."
Speaking to the BBC on Thursday, Lord Winston, a fertility expert, rejected claims regulation of clinical testing of new drugs was "weak and ramshackle".
The professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London and vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, said Britain's system of clinical trials had "lots of safeguards".
He was responding to concerns raised earlier by Paul Flynn MP.
"I think it's really unfortunate that there might be given an impression that our very ethical drug industry is actually not working according to proper practice because I think on the whole it undoubtedly is," he said.
He said he was concerned about growing resistance to animal testing.
He said: "I wonder really whether in fact there's increasing reluctance to do the preliminary trials on animals because of the difficulties generally in doing animal research.
"That I think is a disaster for humans."
'Tested on monkeys'
TeGenero, which manufactures the drug, apologised to the sick men's families and said the medicine had shown no signs of problems in earlier tests.
The company's chief scientific officer, Thomas Hanke, said he and his colleagues were "devastated" by what had happened.
He said TGN1412 had been tested extensively in laboratories and on rabbits and monkeys, with no adverse effects and no drug-related deaths.
It was the first time the drug, designed to treat conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia and multiple sclerosis, had been tested on humans.
Scotland Yard said officers were talking to the MHRA and doctors.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4815780.stm
Published: 2006/03/17 13:54:55 GMT
This proves the main argument made by those against the use of animal in drug testing: there are too many physiological differences between the various species to ever provide accurate results in using non-human animals in drug testing. Hence, it’s wasteful and misleading. Just look at this quote from the article below:
“TeGenero, which manufactures the drug, apologised to the sick men's families and said the medicine had shown no signs of problems in earlier tests.
The company's chief scientific officer, Thomas Hanke, said he and his colleagues were "devastated" by what had happened.
He said TGN1412 had been tested extensively in laboratories and on rabbits and monkeys, with no adverse effects and no drug-related deaths.
It was the first time the drug, designed to treat conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia and multiple sclerosis, had been tested on humans.”
Article:
Drug trial four 'are conscious'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4815780.stm
Four men left seriously ill after taking part in a drug trial have regained consciousness, say doctors.
Another two are in a critical condition and under sedation but have shown early signs of responding to treatment, said Dr Ganesh Suntharalingam.
The men suffered multiple organ failure within hours of taking the TGN1412 drug at a research unit based at Northwick Park Hospital in north-west London.
Medical research firm Parexel said its staff followed correct procedures.
Herman Scholtz, head of Parexel, praised staff's swift response when volunteers suffered a reaction during tests of an anti-inflammatory drug.
In a statement, posted on the website of US-based Parexel, Dr Scholtz said: "An initial review at the site has shown that best practices were followed.
I think it's really unfortunate that there might be given an impression that our very ethical drug industry is actually not working according to proper practice
Lord Winston
"We remain in close and constant contact with the Northwick Park Hospital concerning the medical status of the six volunteers."
Dr Suntharalingam, head of intensive care, said: "Some of them have made noticeable progress in response to our treatment and we have been able to reduce the amount of organ support that is required.
"However, it is early days and they will clearly still continue to need specialist observation for some considerable time.
"There are also some very early signs of response to treatment in the most critically ill patients but I must stress that their condition remains very serious and complex and it wouldn't be sensible to comment on prognosis."
On Friday, Labour MP for Brent North, Barry Gardiner, visited the North West London Hospital Trust chief executive Mary Wells, and said there was no better place for the patients to be treated.
He added it was unclear how long the inquiry by the UK medicines watchdog would take.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is investigating whether the reaction suffered by the men was caused by a manufacturing problem, contamination, a dosing error or whether it was some "completely unanticipated side-effect of the drug in humans".
Mr Gardiner said: "MHRA has sealed the offices of Parexel, bagged and taken away all the relevant information, is conducting interviews with Parexel and with their staff."
Speaking to the BBC on Thursday, Lord Winston, a fertility expert, rejected claims regulation of clinical testing of new drugs was "weak and ramshackle".
The professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London and vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, said Britain's system of clinical trials had "lots of safeguards".
He was responding to concerns raised earlier by Paul Flynn MP.
"I think it's really unfortunate that there might be given an impression that our very ethical drug industry is actually not working according to proper practice because I think on the whole it undoubtedly is," he said.
He said he was concerned about growing resistance to animal testing.
He said: "I wonder really whether in fact there's increasing reluctance to do the preliminary trials on animals because of the difficulties generally in doing animal research.
"That I think is a disaster for humans."
'Tested on monkeys'
TeGenero, which manufactures the drug, apologised to the sick men's families and said the medicine had shown no signs of problems in earlier tests.
The company's chief scientific officer, Thomas Hanke, said he and his colleagues were "devastated" by what had happened.
He said TGN1412 had been tested extensively in laboratories and on rabbits and monkeys, with no adverse effects and no drug-related deaths.
It was the first time the drug, designed to treat conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia and multiple sclerosis, had been tested on humans.
Scotland Yard said officers were talking to the MHRA and doctors.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4815780.stm
Published: 2006/03/17 13:54:55 GMT
Ranking of all Fifty States and the District of Columbia for the Comprehensiveness and Relative Strength of their Respective Animal Protection Laws
A truly amazing endeavor from the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Very helpful for future research.
You will find the report with representative graphics here: http://www.aldf.org/state_rankings.asp
You can download the report in PDF version here: http://www.aldf.org/st_rankings_report_06.pdf
Quick synopsis. From the report at http://www.aldf.org/state_rankings.asp
“Every state today has laws protecting animals from cruelty and neglect; however some states have better laws than others. Following a detailed comparative analysis of the animal protection laws of each state in the country, researching over two thousand pages of statutes and tracking more than thirty different categories of provisions, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has produced a first-of-its-kind report – a ranking of all fifty states and the District of Columbia for the general comprehensiveness and relative strength of their respective animal protection laws. This ranking groups states into top, middle or bottom tiers, and also includes a listing of the five states with the best laws and the five with the worst laws.
“Each state has room for improvement in the various ways its laws protect animals,” says Stephan Otto, Animal Legal Defense Fund's Director of Legislative Affairs and producer of the rankings, “however, it is undeniable that some states do have stronger, more extensive laws than others.” “We hope this report encourages states, especially those at the lower end of the ranking, to refocus their attention on this problem and work harder at improving their laws.”
The Animal Legal Defense Fund plans to release these rankings on an annual basis. Please contact your state legislators and encourage them to support improvements to the laws that protect animals. For additional information, visit the Laws & Legislation section on our website.”
Download this report (PDF) - http://www.aldf.org/st_rankings_report_06.pdf
2006 State Animal Protection Laws Rankings
Best Laws California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Oregon
Worst Laws Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Utah
Top Tier California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Virginia
Middle Tier Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee
Bottom Tier Alaska, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
Overview: Why These States Made the “Worst Laws” List
Hawaii
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate range of prohibitions and definitions/standards of basic care
* No mental health evaluations or counseling on conviction
* No cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution or lien provisions)
* Inadequate provisions for forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No separate crime for the sexual assault of an animal
Idaho
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate definitions/standards of basic care
* No mental health evaluations or counseling on conviction
* Inadequate cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, reimbursement of costs, restitution)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
Kentucky
* Inadequate range of prohibitions and definitions/standards of basic care
* Principal protections apply only to select types of animals
* Felony provision available only for select repeat offenses involving only select animals
* No mental health evaluations or counseling following a conviction
* No cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution provisions)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No separate crime for the sexual assault of an animal
North Dakota
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate definitions/standards of basic care
* No mental health evaluations or counseling on conviction
* Inadequate cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution provisions)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No humane agents with limited or same powers as peace officers
Utah
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate definitions/standards of basic care
* Principal protections apply only to select types of animals
* No mental health evaluations
* Inadequate cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution provisions)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No humane agents with limited or same powers as peace officers
You will find the report with representative graphics here: http://www.aldf.org/state_rankings.asp
You can download the report in PDF version here: http://www.aldf.org/st_rankings_report_06.pdf
Quick synopsis. From the report at http://www.aldf.org/state_rankings.asp
“Every state today has laws protecting animals from cruelty and neglect; however some states have better laws than others. Following a detailed comparative analysis of the animal protection laws of each state in the country, researching over two thousand pages of statutes and tracking more than thirty different categories of provisions, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has produced a first-of-its-kind report – a ranking of all fifty states and the District of Columbia for the general comprehensiveness and relative strength of their respective animal protection laws. This ranking groups states into top, middle or bottom tiers, and also includes a listing of the five states with the best laws and the five with the worst laws.
“Each state has room for improvement in the various ways its laws protect animals,” says Stephan Otto, Animal Legal Defense Fund's Director of Legislative Affairs and producer of the rankings, “however, it is undeniable that some states do have stronger, more extensive laws than others.” “We hope this report encourages states, especially those at the lower end of the ranking, to refocus their attention on this problem and work harder at improving their laws.”
The Animal Legal Defense Fund plans to release these rankings on an annual basis. Please contact your state legislators and encourage them to support improvements to the laws that protect animals. For additional information, visit the Laws & Legislation section on our website.”
Download this report (PDF) - http://www.aldf.org/st_rankings_report_06.pdf
2006 State Animal Protection Laws Rankings
Best Laws California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Oregon
Worst Laws Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, North Dakota, Utah
Top Tier California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Virginia
Middle Tier Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee
Bottom Tier Alaska, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming
Overview: Why These States Made the “Worst Laws” List
Hawaii
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate range of prohibitions and definitions/standards of basic care
* No mental health evaluations or counseling on conviction
* No cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution or lien provisions)
* Inadequate provisions for forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No separate crime for the sexual assault of an animal
Idaho
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate definitions/standards of basic care
* No mental health evaluations or counseling on conviction
* Inadequate cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, reimbursement of costs, restitution)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
Kentucky
* Inadequate range of prohibitions and definitions/standards of basic care
* Principal protections apply only to select types of animals
* Felony provision available only for select repeat offenses involving only select animals
* No mental health evaluations or counseling following a conviction
* No cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution provisions)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No separate crime for the sexual assault of an animal
North Dakota
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate definitions/standards of basic care
* No mental health evaluations or counseling on conviction
* Inadequate cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution provisions)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No humane agents with limited or same powers as peace officers
Utah
* No felony animal cruelty provision
* Inadequate definitions/standards of basic care
* Principal protections apply only to select types of animals
* No mental health evaluations
* Inadequate cost mitigation provisions for impounded animals (e.g. cost-of-care bonds, other reimbursement of costs, restitution provisions)
* No forfeiture of abused animals
* No restrictions on future ownership or possession of animals following a conviction
* No humane agents with limited or same powers as peace officers
Creators of "Wegmans Cruelty", Which Exposes Cruelty at Wegmans Egg Farm in NY Charged with Burglary: Cause is Greater than the Punishment
For more information on Wegmans Cruelty, visit http://www.wegmanscruelty.com
I wrote about Wegmans Cruelty at:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2005/08/
more-proof-of-cruelty-short-clip-and.html
Article:
March 16, 2006
Capturing Caged Hens on Video Brings a Charge of Burglary
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/
nyregion/16hen.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
By MICHELLE YORK
ROCHESTER, March 13 — Last fall, Adam C. Durand's first film had its premiere before a large, mostly supportive audience at a local theater.
In May, Mr. Durand, 26, expects that the film will be shown again — this time to jurors at his trial on felony burglary charges.
The film and his arrest have attracted considerable attention to the widespread but little-known practice of confining hens to small wire cages at egg farms, and the animal-rights campaigns against it.
Still, Mr. Durand says: "I didn't sign up for making a film because I wanted to be a martyr. I did this because I felt I had to do it."
In 2003, Mr. Durand learned that an overwhelming majority of the world's eggs are produced at farms where hens are caged. At some farms, the hens are literally piled on top of each other in a cage without enough room to lie down or flap their wings. Cages are stacked in rows, so farmers can house more birds. But that leaves hens on the lower rows vulnerable to dripping feces.
The practice has its benefits, some experts say. It reduces production costs, and it cuts the hens' exposure to predators and potential diseases, said Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University and an author.
To animal-rights activists, the practice is cruel and unethical. Several countries in Europe have banned caged-hen egg farms. In the last year, the Humane Society of the United States has persuaded several supermarkets and some 80 colleges and universities to buy eggs from cageless farms, said the society's president, Wayne Pacelle.
Still, perhaps 95 percent of the country's eggs come from caged hens. Mr. Durand and a few friends decided to investigate the conditions at one of the largest egg farms in the state, which is owned by the Rochester-based supermarket chain Wegmans.
After the company denied his request for a tour of the farm, which is in Wolcott, 47 miles east of Rochester, Mr. Durand and a few friends made three midnight visits in 2004. The complex, which houses 750,000 hens and supplies all of the Wegmans-brand eggs to the chain's 69 stores, was unlocked, and no employees were around, he said, and he and his companions wandered freely, though they said they were aware that they were trespassing.
They said they found hens were closely confined, sometimes spattered with manure and sickly. In some cages, a hen carcass was left with live chickens, he said. Below the cages were manure pits, some with mounds three to four feet deep. "We could hardly breathe," he said.
Mr. Durand, who works as a graphic artist, shot video during the visits and took a few of the more sickly hens with him, which he bathed and placed at a friend's farm. From the video, he produced a 27-minute documentary called "Wegmans Cruelty."
He dropped off a few copies at the Wegmans corporate office and began showing it around town as part of a campaign to pressure the company to change its practices.
Last September, the film was one of about 100 chosen for the Emerging Filmmaker series at the Little Theater in downtown Rochester. The film caused quite a stir, especially since Wegmans frequently makes the Forbes list of best workplaces and Rochesterians are known to be so proud of the markets that they show them off to out-of-town visitors.
A few people wrote to the theater asking that the film not be shown, but a larger number supported it, according to organizers of the series. "It was a packed house," said Karen vanMeenan, who chose the films.
At Wegmans, executives were not impressed. "We are very appalled at what was said about us and the picture it paints," said Jo Natale, a company spokeswoman.
So was the company veterinarian, Dr. Benjamin Lucio-Martinez, a professor at Cornell University who inspects the Wegmans farm once or twice a year. "It was extremely overrated," he said. "Those things do happen in chick houses, but this was like watching a show of 'Law and Order.' It makes you think crimes like that happen everywhere in New York City."
Ms. Natale said she did not believe that all of the film was actually shot at the Wegmans farm, as Mr. Durand claims. Some of the scenes were misleading, she said, citing one in which a swollen hen was held up to the camera. "That's how a hen looks before she lays an egg," Ms. Natale said. She added that the farm's 75 employees inspect the cages each day to remove carcasses.
After the film's debut, Wegmans pressed burglary and other charges against Mr. Durand and two of his friends, Melanie Ippolito and Megan Cosgrove. Ms. Ippolito and Ms. Cosgrove have since pleaded guilty to reduced charges, but Mr. Durand has not been offered a plea bargain. He faces the most serious counts, including burglary, criminal mischief, petty larceny and criminal trespass. His trial is scheduled for May.
Though Wegmans said it had no plans to change its production techniques, it did hire a consultant to make recommendations for improvements. As the national animal-rights movement has gained ground, a trade group of poultry producers, which includes Wegmans, has recently agreed to drop the "Animal Care Certified" logo from its egg cartons after the Better Business Bureau charged that it was misleading advertising.
Mr. Durand said that gave him hope. "I'm glad we did it," he said of the film. "I have faith that whatever comes out of it legally, that it will be worth it."
I wrote about Wegmans Cruelty at:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2005/08/
more-proof-of-cruelty-short-clip-and.html
Article:
March 16, 2006
Capturing Caged Hens on Video Brings a Charge of Burglary
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/
nyregion/16hen.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
By MICHELLE YORK
ROCHESTER, March 13 — Last fall, Adam C. Durand's first film had its premiere before a large, mostly supportive audience at a local theater.
In May, Mr. Durand, 26, expects that the film will be shown again — this time to jurors at his trial on felony burglary charges.
The film and his arrest have attracted considerable attention to the widespread but little-known practice of confining hens to small wire cages at egg farms, and the animal-rights campaigns against it.
Still, Mr. Durand says: "I didn't sign up for making a film because I wanted to be a martyr. I did this because I felt I had to do it."
In 2003, Mr. Durand learned that an overwhelming majority of the world's eggs are produced at farms where hens are caged. At some farms, the hens are literally piled on top of each other in a cage without enough room to lie down or flap their wings. Cages are stacked in rows, so farmers can house more birds. But that leaves hens on the lower rows vulnerable to dripping feces.
The practice has its benefits, some experts say. It reduces production costs, and it cuts the hens' exposure to predators and potential diseases, said Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University and an author.
To animal-rights activists, the practice is cruel and unethical. Several countries in Europe have banned caged-hen egg farms. In the last year, the Humane Society of the United States has persuaded several supermarkets and some 80 colleges and universities to buy eggs from cageless farms, said the society's president, Wayne Pacelle.
Still, perhaps 95 percent of the country's eggs come from caged hens. Mr. Durand and a few friends decided to investigate the conditions at one of the largest egg farms in the state, which is owned by the Rochester-based supermarket chain Wegmans.
After the company denied his request for a tour of the farm, which is in Wolcott, 47 miles east of Rochester, Mr. Durand and a few friends made three midnight visits in 2004. The complex, which houses 750,000 hens and supplies all of the Wegmans-brand eggs to the chain's 69 stores, was unlocked, and no employees were around, he said, and he and his companions wandered freely, though they said they were aware that they were trespassing.
They said they found hens were closely confined, sometimes spattered with manure and sickly. In some cages, a hen carcass was left with live chickens, he said. Below the cages were manure pits, some with mounds three to four feet deep. "We could hardly breathe," he said.
Mr. Durand, who works as a graphic artist, shot video during the visits and took a few of the more sickly hens with him, which he bathed and placed at a friend's farm. From the video, he produced a 27-minute documentary called "Wegmans Cruelty."
He dropped off a few copies at the Wegmans corporate office and began showing it around town as part of a campaign to pressure the company to change its practices.
Last September, the film was one of about 100 chosen for the Emerging Filmmaker series at the Little Theater in downtown Rochester. The film caused quite a stir, especially since Wegmans frequently makes the Forbes list of best workplaces and Rochesterians are known to be so proud of the markets that they show them off to out-of-town visitors.
A few people wrote to the theater asking that the film not be shown, but a larger number supported it, according to organizers of the series. "It was a packed house," said Karen vanMeenan, who chose the films.
At Wegmans, executives were not impressed. "We are very appalled at what was said about us and the picture it paints," said Jo Natale, a company spokeswoman.
So was the company veterinarian, Dr. Benjamin Lucio-Martinez, a professor at Cornell University who inspects the Wegmans farm once or twice a year. "It was extremely overrated," he said. "Those things do happen in chick houses, but this was like watching a show of 'Law and Order.' It makes you think crimes like that happen everywhere in New York City."
Ms. Natale said she did not believe that all of the film was actually shot at the Wegmans farm, as Mr. Durand claims. Some of the scenes were misleading, she said, citing one in which a swollen hen was held up to the camera. "That's how a hen looks before she lays an egg," Ms. Natale said. She added that the farm's 75 employees inspect the cages each day to remove carcasses.
After the film's debut, Wegmans pressed burglary and other charges against Mr. Durand and two of his friends, Melanie Ippolito and Megan Cosgrove. Ms. Ippolito and Ms. Cosgrove have since pleaded guilty to reduced charges, but Mr. Durand has not been offered a plea bargain. He faces the most serious counts, including burglary, criminal mischief, petty larceny and criminal trespass. His trial is scheduled for May.
Though Wegmans said it had no plans to change its production techniques, it did hire a consultant to make recommendations for improvements. As the national animal-rights movement has gained ground, a trade group of poultry producers, which includes Wegmans, has recently agreed to drop the "Animal Care Certified" logo from its egg cartons after the Better Business Bureau charged that it was misleading advertising.
Mr. Durand said that gave him hope. "I'm glad we did it," he said of the film. "I have faith that whatever comes out of it legally, that it will be worth it."
Friday, March 17, 2006
Group Let’s Potential Tourists to Alaska Know – Your Tourist Dollars Go Towards the Aerial Shooting of Wolves
Group Let’s Potential Tourists to Alaska Know – Your Tourist Dollars Go Towards the Aerial Shooting of Wolves
Shocking isn’t it that there are actually people who would shoot a wolves from a helicopter? These animals deserve to be where they are. To shoot one or any of them is arrogance and cruelty beyond description. Just amazing what humans will do.
So, if you don’t want to support the aerial killing of wolves, don’t travel to or support Alaska. For more information on the issues visit http://www.boycott-alaska.com/
Article:
Animal rights group takes ad campaign to the people
http://www.ktva.com/topstory/ci_3598357
Associated Press
KTVA
An animal rights group is once again targeting Alaska's tourism industry. Connecticut-based Friends of Animals has a new ad campaign that hopes to shoot down the state's aerial wolf control program.
The ads say ... quote ... "If you shoot wolves to save moose and then you shoot the moose, you're either out of your mind or in Alaska."
The ad is running today in USA Today -- the nation's largest newspaper.
It will also run in several magazines this spring. The ad asks travelers to boycott Alaska because tourists dollars condone the killing of wolves.
Shocking isn’t it that there are actually people who would shoot a wolves from a helicopter? These animals deserve to be where they are. To shoot one or any of them is arrogance and cruelty beyond description. Just amazing what humans will do.
So, if you don’t want to support the aerial killing of wolves, don’t travel to or support Alaska. For more information on the issues visit http://www.boycott-alaska.com/
Article:
Animal rights group takes ad campaign to the people
http://www.ktva.com/topstory/ci_3598357
Associated Press
KTVA
An animal rights group is once again targeting Alaska's tourism industry. Connecticut-based Friends of Animals has a new ad campaign that hopes to shoot down the state's aerial wolf control program.
The ads say ... quote ... "If you shoot wolves to save moose and then you shoot the moose, you're either out of your mind or in Alaska."
The ad is running today in USA Today -- the nation's largest newspaper.
It will also run in several magazines this spring. The ad asks travelers to boycott Alaska because tourists dollars condone the killing of wolves.
Once Animal-Friendly Company The Body Shop Sells Out: Will Be Purchased by Animal Tester L'Oreal to for $1.1 Billion: Money Again Wins Over Ethics
Once Animal-Friendly Company The Body Shop Sells Out: Will Be Purchased by Animal Tester L'Oreal to for $1.1 Billion: Money Again Wins Over Ethics
Whelp, another one bites the dust. It’s amazing what money will do to one’s ethics. Well, maybe The Body Shop founders Anita Roddick and her husband Gordon Roddick never actually had those ethics. Seems if they did, they fell quite quickly in the face of huge money.
Regardless of what the company says, L’Oreal still is considered a company that tests on animals. You’ll even see in the article that even the author believes that they stopped. Well, according to the updated sources we use, they are still considered to be engaged in animal testing. The sources we used can be found here:
http://www.caringconsumer.com/page/CompaniesDo.pdf
http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_whois
A sad, sad day. Money wins again.
Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060317/bs_nm/retail_
loreal_dc&printer=1;_ylt=Al3SodolX4B3T4A4DX7L.hub.
HQA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Whelp, another one bites the dust. It’s amazing what money will do to one’s ethics. Well, maybe The Body Shop founders Anita Roddick and her husband Gordon Roddick never actually had those ethics. Seems if they did, they fell quite quickly in the face of huge money.
Regardless of what the company says, L’Oreal still is considered a company that tests on animals. You’ll even see in the article that even the author believes that they stopped. Well, according to the updated sources we use, they are still considered to be engaged in animal testing. The sources we used can be found here:
http://www.caringconsumer.com/page/CompaniesDo.pdf
http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_pt_whois
A sad, sad day. Money wins again.
Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060317/bs_nm/retail_
loreal_dc&printer=1;_ylt=Al3SodolX4B3T4A4DX7L.hub.
HQA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
More on Australian Live Exports: Unbelievable Cruelty to Cattle and Sheep in Oman, Kuwait and Egypt Renews Calls for No Live Export to Middle East
For background on this issue, see:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/unbelievable-
video-exposes_08.html
Article:
Animal rights group targets live sheep importers
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1593113.htm
Thursday, 16/03/2006
Animal rights group PETA is ramping up its campaign against live sheep exports from Australia.
Graphic footage of illegal slaughter practices allegedly taking place in Oman, Kuwait, and Egypt has been sent to the governments of those countries, along a request to stop live animal shipments.
Exports to Egypt were halted last month, after footage was aired in Australia of cattle being mistreated.
Paula Hough from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says animal cruelty needs to be addressed.
"We've decided to branch out and contact the ministers in the countries where the abuses are happening themselves and give them the opportunity to take the stand and say animal welfare is a priority for that country, and demand from Australia that they start only shipping chilled meat," she said.
Livecorp says while it is taking the issues raised by PETA seriously, it is yet to see the new footage.
Chief executive Cameron Hall says there are questions around the group's motives.
"I'm concerned that some of the organisations such as PETA, and some of their actions, are not necessarily fundamentally focused on improving animal welfare outcomes for the animals involved, but they're fundamentally concerned with shutting down farming," he said.
Meanwhile the RSPCA is defending an Internet poll it says shows that Tasmanians want the live export trade halted.
RSPCA Tasmania says the poll, asking what people think of the Tasmanian Government's handling of the livex issue, has registered 100 votes a day for the week it has been running.
Chief executive Dr Rick Butler says seventy 5 per cent of respondents are not happy, and want live exports banned.
But he concedes the result is not surprising, given the poll was conducted on the RSPCA web site.
"Twenty-five per cent of the votes there are negative votes and we do know of kind of large producer companies within and outside of Tasmania who've kind of voted on the poll, in the negative, we're aware of that, but we've tried to keep it in context that these are people that would be visiting the site anyway," he said.
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/unbelievable-
video-exposes_08.html
Article:
Animal rights group targets live sheep importers
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1593113.htm
Thursday, 16/03/2006
Animal rights group PETA is ramping up its campaign against live sheep exports from Australia.
Graphic footage of illegal slaughter practices allegedly taking place in Oman, Kuwait, and Egypt has been sent to the governments of those countries, along a request to stop live animal shipments.
Exports to Egypt were halted last month, after footage was aired in Australia of cattle being mistreated.
Paula Hough from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says animal cruelty needs to be addressed.
"We've decided to branch out and contact the ministers in the countries where the abuses are happening themselves and give them the opportunity to take the stand and say animal welfare is a priority for that country, and demand from Australia that they start only shipping chilled meat," she said.
Livecorp says while it is taking the issues raised by PETA seriously, it is yet to see the new footage.
Chief executive Cameron Hall says there are questions around the group's motives.
"I'm concerned that some of the organisations such as PETA, and some of their actions, are not necessarily fundamentally focused on improving animal welfare outcomes for the animals involved, but they're fundamentally concerned with shutting down farming," he said.
Meanwhile the RSPCA is defending an Internet poll it says shows that Tasmanians want the live export trade halted.
RSPCA Tasmania says the poll, asking what people think of the Tasmanian Government's handling of the livex issue, has registered 100 votes a day for the week it has been running.
Chief executive Dr Rick Butler says seventy 5 per cent of respondents are not happy, and want live exports banned.
But he concedes the result is not surprising, given the poll was conducted on the RSPCA web site.
"Twenty-five per cent of the votes there are negative votes and we do know of kind of large producer companies within and outside of Tasmania who've kind of voted on the poll, in the negative, we're aware of that, but we've tried to keep it in context that these are people that would be visiting the site anyway," he said.
Millionaire Circus Boss Animal Abuser Kenneth Feld Pulls Strings and Wins Case Over Animal Rights Group
Another travesty of “justice.” Not surprised though as Kenneth Feld the millionaire animal abuser has a way of getting out of everything. It’s clearly documented he spied on PETA. Not surprised though that proof had no say in this case.
For proof of the horrors committed by Ringling Brothers Circus on a variety of animals visit: http://www.circuses.com/
Article:
Victory for circus boss over animal rights group
http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=4638951&nav=8fap
FAIRFAX, Va. A circus boss has won a legal victory in a spy case.
Jurors in Virginia have rejected a suit filed by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals against Kenneth Feld, president of a group that owns the Ringling Brothers Circus and other acts.
The suit said Feld and company executives spied on PETA and other groups. Feld's lawyer had said during opening arguments nothing illegal was done and that PETA was hypocritical, saying it frequently uses undercover operatives.
A PETA lawyer says he'll appeal.
For proof of the horrors committed by Ringling Brothers Circus on a variety of animals visit: http://www.circuses.com/
Article:
Victory for circus boss over animal rights group
http://www.wtvm.com/Global/story.asp?S=4638951&nav=8fap
FAIRFAX, Va. A circus boss has won a legal victory in a spy case.
Jurors in Virginia have rejected a suit filed by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals against Kenneth Feld, president of a group that owns the Ringling Brothers Circus and other acts.
The suit said Feld and company executives spied on PETA and other groups. Feld's lawyer had said during opening arguments nothing illegal was done and that PETA was hypocritical, saying it frequently uses undercover operatives.
A PETA lawyer says he'll appeal.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
American Humane Association and "No Animals Were Harmed" Disclaimer at End of Movies a Lie: Groups Uncover Cozy Relationship with Hollywood and Money
Groups Uncover Cozy Relationship with Hollywood and Big Money: AHA Won’t Support Campaign to Protect Apes
I’ve been saying this for a long time: the American Humane Association is a farce. Just consider that they get $1.5 million annually from the film industry to “monitor” films. For those of you who can think, that sounds an awful lot like what lobbyists do to politicians – buy their silence.
This is very clear in the fact that they won’t support the "No Reel Apes" Campaign.
This campaign was started by a coalition of primatologists, attorneys, scientists and actors that are calling for an end to the use of apes in entertainment, citing the practice of separating infants and mothers, deplorable living conditions and abusive trainers. So, if the American Humane Association really cared, they’d support the campaign. But, like lobbyists, they cannot, and must listen to their masters – the film industry.
Consider more proof. I wrote about the issue involving the death of a horse in the shooting of the movie Flicka. Read the following link for background on this issue: http://geari.blogspot.com/2005/05/
horse-killed-on-set-of-new-film-proves.html
Sure, dismiss me as engaging in conspiracy, but just read the facts in the article below. This has moved behind the realm of speculation to fact.
Article:
Animal-rights groups target Humane Assoc
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/
entertainment/gossip/14106228.htm
MEGAN McCLOSKEY
Associated Press
DENVER - The "No Animals Were Harmed" disclaimer at the end of the movie has been part of the popular vernacular since 1989, when it first showed up in Paul Newman's "Fat Man and Little Boy." It's even trademarked.
But animal-rights activists say the official-sounding phrase is nothing more than a hollow slogan when it comes to the great ape. Some are accusing the Denver-based American Humane Association, which grants the disclaimer to filmmakers, of failing to protect our closest animal-kingdom relative.
A coalition of primatologists, attorneys, scientists and actors are calling for an end to the use of apes in entertainment, citing the practice of separating infants and mothers, deplorable living conditions and abusive trainers.
They're calling the campaign "No Reel Apes."
The humane association is the only organization authorized by Hollywood to monitor animal use on movie sets and it gets $1.5 million annually from the film industry to do so. The AHA has sparked an uproar by declining to join the "No Reel Apes" campaign.
"They are the only regulatory agency that links care for animals to the industry," said Nona Gandelman of the Jane Goodall Institute in Arlington, Va. "They have a foot in the door."
The AHA has been involved in the entertainment industry since 1939 when a horse was forced to leap to its death in a cliff scene during the making of the movie "Jesse James." The group boycotted the movie, causing a public outcry and earning itself an on-set monitoring role.
The AHA looks out for creatures great and small, down to the smallest bug (precautions have to be taken to prevent insects from flying into the klieg lights). AHA safety monitors have unlimited access to sets working with the Screen Actors Guild and they review scripts for possible risks.
The AHA recently denied its trademarked disclaimer to the box-office hit "The 40 Year Old Virgin" because tropical fish died on set after someone turned off the aeration in the tank.
AHA officials say there is no conflict of interest when it comes to funding, since an independent board oversees the money it is paid by the film industry. They also say there is a proper place for apes in entertainment - almost always chimpanzees or orangutans - and that their role as safety overseers is too vital to risk by joining the "No Reel Apes" campaign.
"Rather than sign on that they (apes) can't be used in entertainment, we can protect their safety," said Marie Belew Wheatley, president of the association. "To walk away from that would leave producers to use apes and chimps with no oversight for their humane treatment. We feel that responsibility outweighs any interest in signing on to the campaign."
The association's only real power is the disclaimer and producers don't have to follow the guidelines. The association can't ban an animal trainer known for abuse from being used on set, though it can alert authorities if they see any abuse.
"Studios hide behind the fact that they have animal-welfare monitors on the site," said Sara Beckler, a primatologist with the Chimpanzee Collaboratory in Washington, which is leading the campaign. "The only way to give these endangered species the protection they need is to simply not use them."
Gayle Osterberg, spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said the organization has spoken with the collaboratory to let it know they empathize with the group's concern and that animal safety is a priority for the studios.
"The MPAA cannot, though, dictate rules," she said, adding that technology is playing an increasing role in reducing the need for live animals.
The AHA updated its guidelines last month for safe animal use in entertainment. The primates section has been changed and now includes, for example, a request that producers consider the impact of separating infants and mothers and retirement plans for apes too old for film.
Supporters of the "No Reel Apes" campaign applaud those efforts, but say recommendations without policing authority is simply not enough and that much of the inhumane treatment occurs during training off the set, where the association lacks authority.
The campaign has released a report detailing a 14-month undercover investigation by Beckler at the facility of Sid Yost, a prominent Hollywood animal trainer. Beckler said she worked as a volunteer at Yost's Amazing Animals and saw repeated abuse, including beatings with a sawed-off broom stick called the "ugly stick" and other tactics meant to inspire fear.
Yost vehemently denied all the charges.
"I don't believe in beating animals. I wouldn't be in the business if that's what I had to do," Yost said, noting his chimpanzees have their hands and feet rubbed with lotion every day, get gummy vitamins and play on gymnast rings and swings for entertainment.
Leonard Sigdestad, a veterinarian who treats Yost's chimps at Loma Linda Animal Hospital in San Bernardino, Calif., said claims of abuse are the "farthest thing from the truth."
"Those chimpanzees are treated better than most children are," he said.
Those who want apes banned from movies also say retirement is a significant problem. A typical career for a chimpanzee is a couple of years, but their life span is between 50 and 60 years. The collaboratory said most Hollywood apes end up in roadside zoos or unfit facilities for four or five decades after they are no longer useful to their trainers.
"They are forced to do things that are not normal or natural to them and then afterward they are discarded," Gandelman said.
Rob Shumaker, a primatologist with the Great Apes Trust in Des Moines, Iowa, said the problems with using apes in entertainment goes beyond their immediate welfare.
"There's emerging evidence that seeing apes in movies gives people an anti-conservation attitude. People think they must be plentiful if they are able to be used for entertainment," he said. "Apes in the entertainment industry is driven by one thing and one thing only and that's consumer demand."
ON THE NET
Goodall institute: http://www.janegoodall.org
The Chimpanzee Collaboratory: http://www.chimpcollaboratory.org/index.htm
I’ve been saying this for a long time: the American Humane Association is a farce. Just consider that they get $1.5 million annually from the film industry to “monitor” films. For those of you who can think, that sounds an awful lot like what lobbyists do to politicians – buy their silence.
This is very clear in the fact that they won’t support the "No Reel Apes" Campaign.
This campaign was started by a coalition of primatologists, attorneys, scientists and actors that are calling for an end to the use of apes in entertainment, citing the practice of separating infants and mothers, deplorable living conditions and abusive trainers. So, if the American Humane Association really cared, they’d support the campaign. But, like lobbyists, they cannot, and must listen to their masters – the film industry.
Consider more proof. I wrote about the issue involving the death of a horse in the shooting of the movie Flicka. Read the following link for background on this issue: http://geari.blogspot.com/2005/05/
horse-killed-on-set-of-new-film-proves.html
Sure, dismiss me as engaging in conspiracy, but just read the facts in the article below. This has moved behind the realm of speculation to fact.
Article:
Animal-rights groups target Humane Assoc
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/
entertainment/gossip/14106228.htm
MEGAN McCLOSKEY
Associated Press
DENVER - The "No Animals Were Harmed" disclaimer at the end of the movie has been part of the popular vernacular since 1989, when it first showed up in Paul Newman's "Fat Man and Little Boy." It's even trademarked.
But animal-rights activists say the official-sounding phrase is nothing more than a hollow slogan when it comes to the great ape. Some are accusing the Denver-based American Humane Association, which grants the disclaimer to filmmakers, of failing to protect our closest animal-kingdom relative.
A coalition of primatologists, attorneys, scientists and actors are calling for an end to the use of apes in entertainment, citing the practice of separating infants and mothers, deplorable living conditions and abusive trainers.
They're calling the campaign "No Reel Apes."
The humane association is the only organization authorized by Hollywood to monitor animal use on movie sets and it gets $1.5 million annually from the film industry to do so. The AHA has sparked an uproar by declining to join the "No Reel Apes" campaign.
"They are the only regulatory agency that links care for animals to the industry," said Nona Gandelman of the Jane Goodall Institute in Arlington, Va. "They have a foot in the door."
The AHA has been involved in the entertainment industry since 1939 when a horse was forced to leap to its death in a cliff scene during the making of the movie "Jesse James." The group boycotted the movie, causing a public outcry and earning itself an on-set monitoring role.
The AHA looks out for creatures great and small, down to the smallest bug (precautions have to be taken to prevent insects from flying into the klieg lights). AHA safety monitors have unlimited access to sets working with the Screen Actors Guild and they review scripts for possible risks.
The AHA recently denied its trademarked disclaimer to the box-office hit "The 40 Year Old Virgin" because tropical fish died on set after someone turned off the aeration in the tank.
AHA officials say there is no conflict of interest when it comes to funding, since an independent board oversees the money it is paid by the film industry. They also say there is a proper place for apes in entertainment - almost always chimpanzees or orangutans - and that their role as safety overseers is too vital to risk by joining the "No Reel Apes" campaign.
"Rather than sign on that they (apes) can't be used in entertainment, we can protect their safety," said Marie Belew Wheatley, president of the association. "To walk away from that would leave producers to use apes and chimps with no oversight for their humane treatment. We feel that responsibility outweighs any interest in signing on to the campaign."
The association's only real power is the disclaimer and producers don't have to follow the guidelines. The association can't ban an animal trainer known for abuse from being used on set, though it can alert authorities if they see any abuse.
"Studios hide behind the fact that they have animal-welfare monitors on the site," said Sara Beckler, a primatologist with the Chimpanzee Collaboratory in Washington, which is leading the campaign. "The only way to give these endangered species the protection they need is to simply not use them."
Gayle Osterberg, spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said the organization has spoken with the collaboratory to let it know they empathize with the group's concern and that animal safety is a priority for the studios.
"The MPAA cannot, though, dictate rules," she said, adding that technology is playing an increasing role in reducing the need for live animals.
The AHA updated its guidelines last month for safe animal use in entertainment. The primates section has been changed and now includes, for example, a request that producers consider the impact of separating infants and mothers and retirement plans for apes too old for film.
Supporters of the "No Reel Apes" campaign applaud those efforts, but say recommendations without policing authority is simply not enough and that much of the inhumane treatment occurs during training off the set, where the association lacks authority.
The campaign has released a report detailing a 14-month undercover investigation by Beckler at the facility of Sid Yost, a prominent Hollywood animal trainer. Beckler said she worked as a volunteer at Yost's Amazing Animals and saw repeated abuse, including beatings with a sawed-off broom stick called the "ugly stick" and other tactics meant to inspire fear.
Yost vehemently denied all the charges.
"I don't believe in beating animals. I wouldn't be in the business if that's what I had to do," Yost said, noting his chimpanzees have their hands and feet rubbed with lotion every day, get gummy vitamins and play on gymnast rings and swings for entertainment.
Leonard Sigdestad, a veterinarian who treats Yost's chimps at Loma Linda Animal Hospital in San Bernardino, Calif., said claims of abuse are the "farthest thing from the truth."
"Those chimpanzees are treated better than most children are," he said.
Those who want apes banned from movies also say retirement is a significant problem. A typical career for a chimpanzee is a couple of years, but their life span is between 50 and 60 years. The collaboratory said most Hollywood apes end up in roadside zoos or unfit facilities for four or five decades after they are no longer useful to their trainers.
"They are forced to do things that are not normal or natural to them and then afterward they are discarded," Gandelman said.
Rob Shumaker, a primatologist with the Great Apes Trust in Des Moines, Iowa, said the problems with using apes in entertainment goes beyond their immediate welfare.
"There's emerging evidence that seeing apes in movies gives people an anti-conservation attitude. People think they must be plentiful if they are able to be used for entertainment," he said. "Apes in the entertainment industry is driven by one thing and one thing only and that's consumer demand."
ON THE NET
Goodall institute: http://www.janegoodall.org
The Chimpanzee Collaboratory: http://www.chimpcollaboratory.org/index.htm
Ohio Supreme Court Protects Cruelty at Ohio State University: Denies Legal Right to Animal Rights Group to Access Public Records
As usual, when it might cause harm to an entity, the laws of information access don’t apply. Gee, I wonder what they’re hiding?
Article:
Ohio Supreme Court Supports Ohio State in Animal Rights Lawsuit
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?
ascribeid=20060315.111722&time=12%2014%
20PST&year=2006&public=0
COLUMBUS, Ohio, March 15 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Ohio Supreme Court today ruled against a national animal rights group, denying its attempt to gain access to research data gathered by Ohio State University scientists.
The group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, filed suit late last year seeking access to photographs, videotapes and other records produced as a part of the university's spinal cord injury training program.
Ohio State had argued that such records are considered "intellectual property" and are exempted from disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act.
The Court ruled that the records "remain the intellectual property of OSU, and none of OSU's actions suggest that it intends to give up its right to the scientific and financial benefits that might redound to OSU from its research in the treatment of spinal-cord injuries."
The decision also stated that "OSU has met its burden of establishing that the records at issue are 'intellectual property records' ... and PCRM is therefore not entitled to them under the Public Records Act."
"We are exceedingly pleased that the Court agreed with our position that these records comprise a protected portion of our research data and therefore are not considered public records," said Doug Kniss, senior associate vice president for research.
"This ruling should ease scientists' concerns that their research might be compromised by disclosure of data particularly in areas of controversial biomedical research."
The court action is linked to a federally sponsored spinal cord injury training program taught each summer at Ohio State. The program, supported by the National Institutes of Health, offers a small group of researchers and scientists from around the world the chance to learn new research techniques to study spinal cord injuries.
The program was cited as a model to be emulated by the federal Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. That IOM report called for a national strategy to help physicians and scientists improve recovery from spinal cord injury.
PCRM and other animal rights groups have waged campaigns against this research program for several years.
Article:
Ohio Supreme Court Supports Ohio State in Animal Rights Lawsuit
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?
ascribeid=20060315.111722&time=12%2014%
20PST&year=2006&public=0
COLUMBUS, Ohio, March 15 (AScribe Newswire) -- The Ohio Supreme Court today ruled against a national animal rights group, denying its attempt to gain access to research data gathered by Ohio State University scientists.
The group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, filed suit late last year seeking access to photographs, videotapes and other records produced as a part of the university's spinal cord injury training program.
Ohio State had argued that such records are considered "intellectual property" and are exempted from disclosure under the Ohio Public Records Act.
The Court ruled that the records "remain the intellectual property of OSU, and none of OSU's actions suggest that it intends to give up its right to the scientific and financial benefits that might redound to OSU from its research in the treatment of spinal-cord injuries."
The decision also stated that "OSU has met its burden of establishing that the records at issue are 'intellectual property records' ... and PCRM is therefore not entitled to them under the Public Records Act."
"We are exceedingly pleased that the Court agreed with our position that these records comprise a protected portion of our research data and therefore are not considered public records," said Doug Kniss, senior associate vice president for research.
"This ruling should ease scientists' concerns that their research might be compromised by disclosure of data particularly in areas of controversial biomedical research."
The court action is linked to a federally sponsored spinal cord injury training program taught each summer at Ohio State. The program, supported by the National Institutes of Health, offers a small group of researchers and scientists from around the world the chance to learn new research techniques to study spinal cord injuries.
The program was cited as a model to be emulated by the federal Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. That IOM report called for a national strategy to help physicians and scientists improve recovery from spinal cord injury.
PCRM and other animal rights groups have waged campaigns against this research program for several years.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
More Information on Coming Canadian Baby Seal Slaughter: Tips on What You Can Do to Stop It
From another group. A little current information and then a contact AND a petition for those who want to do something. Very easy.
The mother seals have given birth to their pups on the ice that formed around Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands as well as on the Newfoundland/Labrador Front. The ice is thinner than usual, but the DFO says that it's thick enough to hold the seal pups even as storms come through. Time will tell if they are right.
Now we await word as to whether the DFO go ahead with the massacre. If so, will the ice be thick enough to hold the sealers? A recent article in the Chronicle Herald of Nova Scotia suggests that warm weather and thin ice might prevent a Gulf "hunt" this year due to the dangers posed to sealers. We'll keep an eye on the latest news. Keep checking our web site for updates.
In the meantime, as Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn ponders whether to accept the yet-to-be-released "Seal Management Plan", please take this opportunity to send him an email asking him to cancel the massacre. You can point out the dangers of thin ice, and mention that a 2006 massacre will ensure disaster for the Canadian fishing industry thanks to a ramped up boycott campaign.
http://www.harpseals.org/helpstop/protest/targets.html#politicians
March 15th is the International Day of Action for the Seals!
Please call Stephen Harper's office (the new Prime Minister of Canada) today and as often as you can.
They received many, many calls yesterday from people from the US and Canada asking him to please end the hunt this year so if we keep contacting him, and often, we hope they will listen.
They stated they are receiving many, many phone calls so please try and call as often as you can right now.
When you contact them, ask to speak to someone with regards to the seal hunt:
(613) 992-4211
Thank you for your help.
A petition to put your name to:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/
takeaction/566342047?ltl=1141555333
Sincerely,
Susan Hirsch
Seal-Of-Approval Campaign Coordinator
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
ssforever@earthlink.net
(818) 349-6632 (home – CA)
(818) 825-0239 (cell)
If you missed the Larry King Live show that everyone's talking about, read the transcript here. Larry pitted the great Sir Paul McCartney and his activist wife, Heather, against the bumbling Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams. Danny must have lots of gaps between his teeth to fit all those lies through them!
http://harpseals.org/hunt/press/breakingpress/mccartney.html
The mother seals have given birth to their pups on the ice that formed around Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands as well as on the Newfoundland/Labrador Front. The ice is thinner than usual, but the DFO says that it's thick enough to hold the seal pups even as storms come through. Time will tell if they are right.
Now we await word as to whether the DFO go ahead with the massacre. If so, will the ice be thick enough to hold the sealers? A recent article in the Chronicle Herald of Nova Scotia suggests that warm weather and thin ice might prevent a Gulf "hunt" this year due to the dangers posed to sealers. We'll keep an eye on the latest news. Keep checking our web site for updates.
In the meantime, as Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn ponders whether to accept the yet-to-be-released "Seal Management Plan", please take this opportunity to send him an email asking him to cancel the massacre. You can point out the dangers of thin ice, and mention that a 2006 massacre will ensure disaster for the Canadian fishing industry thanks to a ramped up boycott campaign.
http://www.harpseals.org/helpstop/protest/targets.html#politicians
March 15th is the International Day of Action for the Seals!
Please call Stephen Harper's office (the new Prime Minister of Canada) today and as often as you can.
They received many, many calls yesterday from people from the US and Canada asking him to please end the hunt this year so if we keep contacting him, and often, we hope they will listen.
They stated they are receiving many, many phone calls so please try and call as often as you can right now.
When you contact them, ask to speak to someone with regards to the seal hunt:
(613) 992-4211
Thank you for your help.
A petition to put your name to:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/
takeaction/566342047?ltl=1141555333
Sincerely,
Susan Hirsch
Seal-Of-Approval Campaign Coordinator
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
ssforever@earthlink.net
(818) 349-6632 (home – CA)
(818) 825-0239 (cell)
If you missed the Larry King Live show that everyone's talking about, read the transcript here. Larry pitted the great Sir Paul McCartney and his activist wife, Heather, against the bumbling Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams. Danny must have lots of gaps between his teeth to fit all those lies through them!
http://harpseals.org/hunt/press/breakingpress/mccartney.html
Unfortunately, (Not Surprisingly), The Government has Rejected a Law Suit that Would have Reaffirmed the Law and Disallowed the Slaughter of Horses
For more background on the contentious issue of horse slaughter and how the USDA is actually breaking the law congress just passed by illegally allowing horse slaughter visit this link:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/
horse-slaughter-by-foreign-companies.html
Article:
Judge Rejects Most of Humane Society Suit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/
ap_on_go_co/horse_slaughter_2
By PETE YOST, Associated Press WriterTue Mar 14, 6:29 PM ET
A judge ruled Tuesday that the slaughter of horses for meat may continue in the United States, thwarting an effort by the Humane Society and some in Congress to stop the practice.
American horse meat is sold mostly for human consumption in Europe and Asia. Some goes to U.S. zoos.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected most of a Humane Society case, ruling that the group is not entitled to sue over its allegation that Congress intended to ban horse slaughter.
In the 2006 agriculture spending bill, Congress eliminated funding for salaries and expenses of horse meat inspectors. Inspections are required before horses can be killed.
The congressional action "on its face effectuates only a change in federal funding which does not invoke the environmental, aesthetic, informational or economic interests" of the plaintiffs, the judge ruled.
In response to requests from two slaughter plants in Texas and one in Illinois, the Agriculture Department established an inspection fee system financed by the companies, which said their communities could be facing $41 million in losses.
Former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas, representing the plants, said the companies are pleased with the decision.
"The legislation only changed funding for inspections. The Humane Society believes Congress intended to stop slaughter; it did not," Stenholm said in an interview.
The judge allowed the Humane Society to proceed with its allegation that some of the group's members suffer negative environmental consequences from the operation of the slaughter facilities because the members own or lease property nearby.
Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States, said the group will decide whether to appeal the ruling that went against the group or pursue the allegation of environmental impact in U.S. District Court.
"We stand by the majority of Congress and the American people who want our horses protected, not butchered for French and Belgian dinner plates," said a statement by animal protection groups that brought the case.
On the Net:
Humane Society of the United States: http://www.hsus.org/
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/01/
horse-slaughter-by-foreign-companies.html
Article:
Judge Rejects Most of Humane Society Suit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/
ap_on_go_co/horse_slaughter_2
By PETE YOST, Associated Press WriterTue Mar 14, 6:29 PM ET
A judge ruled Tuesday that the slaughter of horses for meat may continue in the United States, thwarting an effort by the Humane Society and some in Congress to stop the practice.
American horse meat is sold mostly for human consumption in Europe and Asia. Some goes to U.S. zoos.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected most of a Humane Society case, ruling that the group is not entitled to sue over its allegation that Congress intended to ban horse slaughter.
In the 2006 agriculture spending bill, Congress eliminated funding for salaries and expenses of horse meat inspectors. Inspections are required before horses can be killed.
The congressional action "on its face effectuates only a change in federal funding which does not invoke the environmental, aesthetic, informational or economic interests" of the plaintiffs, the judge ruled.
In response to requests from two slaughter plants in Texas and one in Illinois, the Agriculture Department established an inspection fee system financed by the companies, which said their communities could be facing $41 million in losses.
Former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, D-Texas, representing the plants, said the companies are pleased with the decision.
"The legislation only changed funding for inspections. The Humane Society believes Congress intended to stop slaughter; it did not," Stenholm said in an interview.
The judge allowed the Humane Society to proceed with its allegation that some of the group's members suffer negative environmental consequences from the operation of the slaughter facilities because the members own or lease property nearby.
Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States, said the group will decide whether to appeal the ruling that went against the group or pursue the allegation of environmental impact in U.S. District Court.
"We stand by the majority of Congress and the American people who want our horses protected, not butchered for French and Belgian dinner plates," said a statement by animal protection groups that brought the case.
On the Net:
Humane Society of the United States: http://www.hsus.org/
“Center for Consumer Freedom” Exposed for What they Are: By Industry, For Industry: Liars Who Actively Opposes Efforts by Health Advocates and Doctors
This is a great commentary by Michael Markarian, Executive Vice-President, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C. Luckily, one of the larger groups is now attacking this ridiculous group. Really, they are quite childish, using false information to push the agenda of even unhealthy industries such as alcohol and tobacco. And, as always, they love to play word games and call any animal rights groups terrorists. As you’ll see a the end of the commentary, Captain Paul Watson, Founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Friday Harbor, Wash. (the group who actually goes out and tries to stop the seal slaughterers in Canada) debunks any claims that the activists just charged by the government are terrorists. I’ve also written on the false accusations of animal rights activists of being terrorists here:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/
why-recent-convictions-of-animal.html
Article:
Won't support terror
Suggestion the society condones any illegal action
or has ties to eco-terror groups is patently untrue
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid
=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142376615897
Mar. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists
thestar.com, March 13.
The Star allowed the so-called "Center for Consumer Freedom" to cross the line when the group falsely accused the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) of supporting "the eco-terror problem." The suggestion that the HSUS supports any illegal action, or that it has ties to eco-terror groups which it has repeatedly denounced, is patently untrue and outrageous.
The HSUS has repeatedly and publicly criticized individuals and groups who resort to intimidation, vandalism, or violence in the name of supposedly protecting animals. We believe harassment, violence and other illegal tactics are wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with a core ethic of promoting compassion and respect.
A public statement outlining our position has been on our web site (http://www.hsus.org) for several years. While some of our campaigns may appear aggressive — such as the boycott of Canadian seafood to protest the annual killing of 300,000 baby seals — they are always lawful, respectful, and civilized.
The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) — which is not in the centre, nor does it represent consumers or freedom — is run by shills for the tobacco, alcohol and hospitality industries. The group actively opposes efforts by health advocates, doctors, animal welfare advocates and other public interest organizations.
It opposes any advances from anti-smoking, anti-drinking and healthy food advocates, and seeks to discredit them with lies, half-truths, and innuendo. CCF has a history of hurling cheap and tawdry attacks at other mainstream and popular groups, in addition to the HSUS, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the American Medical Association and the Arthritis Foundation.
Readers should recognize that CCF exists for the primary purpose of throwing dirt at groups who propose any reform to food industry practices that would advance animal welfare, food safety, and public health.
Michael Markarian, Executive Vice-President, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.
An enemy of the States
March 13.
The thought police of George Orwell's 1984 have officially arrived.
Six animal rights activists opposing Huntingdon Life Science laboratories have been indicted for felony crimes for simply holding a belief.
They did not hurt anyone, damage any property or threaten anyone.
They simply provided information on the people responsible for horrific cruelty to animals.
Their crime was compassion for which they will go to prison for years.
The United States has transformed Orwell's nightmare into reality.
Who will they come for next?
Captain Paul Watson, Founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Friday Harbor, Wash.
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/
why-recent-convictions-of-animal.html
Article:
Won't support terror
Suggestion the society condones any illegal action
or has ties to eco-terror groups is patently untrue
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid
=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1142376615897
Mar. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists
thestar.com, March 13.
The Star allowed the so-called "Center for Consumer Freedom" to cross the line when the group falsely accused the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) of supporting "the eco-terror problem." The suggestion that the HSUS supports any illegal action, or that it has ties to eco-terror groups which it has repeatedly denounced, is patently untrue and outrageous.
The HSUS has repeatedly and publicly criticized individuals and groups who resort to intimidation, vandalism, or violence in the name of supposedly protecting animals. We believe harassment, violence and other illegal tactics are wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with a core ethic of promoting compassion and respect.
A public statement outlining our position has been on our web site (http://www.hsus.org) for several years. While some of our campaigns may appear aggressive — such as the boycott of Canadian seafood to protest the annual killing of 300,000 baby seals — they are always lawful, respectful, and civilized.
The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) — which is not in the centre, nor does it represent consumers or freedom — is run by shills for the tobacco, alcohol and hospitality industries. The group actively opposes efforts by health advocates, doctors, animal welfare advocates and other public interest organizations.
It opposes any advances from anti-smoking, anti-drinking and healthy food advocates, and seeks to discredit them with lies, half-truths, and innuendo. CCF has a history of hurling cheap and tawdry attacks at other mainstream and popular groups, in addition to the HSUS, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the American Medical Association and the Arthritis Foundation.
Readers should recognize that CCF exists for the primary purpose of throwing dirt at groups who propose any reform to food industry practices that would advance animal welfare, food safety, and public health.
Michael Markarian, Executive Vice-President, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.
An enemy of the States
March 13.
The thought police of George Orwell's 1984 have officially arrived.
Six animal rights activists opposing Huntingdon Life Science laboratories have been indicted for felony crimes for simply holding a belief.
They did not hurt anyone, damage any property or threaten anyone.
They simply provided information on the people responsible for horrific cruelty to animals.
Their crime was compassion for which they will go to prison for years.
The United States has transformed Orwell's nightmare into reality.
Who will they come for next?
Captain Paul Watson, Founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Friday Harbor, Wash.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Frequently Asked Questions About the Coming Canadian Baby Seal Slaughter
Yep, Canada’s annual show of the lowest of human actions – violent, senseless slaughter – the baby Seal slaughter will be starting soon. I will post more when it is very near. For now, here is a great article that exposes the truth behind the slaughter. Good reading for all, including animal haters.
FAQ
http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_faq.html
Frequently Asked Questions
Answered by Paul Watson
Q: I thought the Seal Hunt was shut down several decades ago - in the 1980's?
Paul Watson: The commercial hunt was shut down in 1983 after the European Union banned the seal pelts from market in Europe. The hunt was never shut down completely. An average of 60,000 seals were killed each year between 1984 and 1994. In 1995, the commercial hunt was brought back when a Newfoundlander named Brian Tobin became the Minister of Fisheries. This was two years after the cod fishery collapsed due to over-fishing. The fishermen blamed the seals for the decline of the cod and demanded a kill. Since 1994, the kill quota has risen each year. The kill for 2003 is 375,000 harps seals, the largest quota ever allocated by the Canadian government. Still the Newfoundlanders are not satisfied and are demanding that even more seals be killed. Some Newfoundland politicians have called for eradication. Greenpeace was one of the organizations opposing the hunt between 1976 and 1982. Although I was the Expedition Leader and organizer of the 1st Greenpeace campaign to the ice, it is a mistake to credit Greenpeace with ending the hunt. There were many other organizations involved including the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Fund for Animals and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. In 1984, Greenpeace changed it's policy and has refrained from opposition to the hunt.
Q: What happens to the seal meat after they are killed?
Paul Watson: Most of the meat is wasted and also left on the ice. Some if it is sold to fur farms and some is ground up into animal feed. A few thousand seal flippers are sold for human consumption in Newfoundland. There is a limited market for the seal penis to the Far East as some sort of voodoo quack remedy for impotence.
Q: How do they kill the seals?
Paul Watson: Most of the younger seals are killed with clubs or hakapiks in order to not downgrade their pelts with a bullet hole. Since older seals are faster, more aggressive, and can swim, most are shot at a distance with high powered rifles to limit their efforts at escape. (unless it's a clean shot, most wounded seals will head for the nearest open water where they often will simply slip away under the ice and perish.)
Some seals are caught in nets and die from drowning. Many seals are run down in the ice, especially by the Canadian government ice-breakers.
credit Bob Talbot
Q: Who kills seals?
Paul Watson: There are no indigenous peoples involved in the East coast Canadian seal hunt. Seals hunted by Inuit or Native people in the North are taken in the arctic and are primarily ringed seals. The Harp and Hood seals are hunted in the Gulf of St.Lawrence by residents of the Magdalen Islands in Quebec. These are French speaking people. The other location is called the Newfoundland Front in the Atlantic and this hunt is conducted by Newfoundlanders. As a point of interest there are no native people in Newfoundland. The last member of the Beothuk nation, the indigenous peoples of Newfoundland, died in 1912. The Newfoundlanders had a bounty on the Beothuk and most were slain by MicMac Indian bounty hunters from New Brunswick and Quebec. Newfoundlanders also drove the Newfoundland wolf, the walrus, and the Labrador duck to extinction and extirpated the polar bear, and the pilot whale from Newfoundland territory....
Q: Is there a blackmarket for any seal products?
Paul Watson: With the exception of the seal penis bone market in Asia, there is not really a black market for seal products because there is little demand for them. However, whenever a sealer exceeds his quota, there are no legal consequences. Sealers in Canada have a license to torture, mutilate, and kill over quota without fear of repercussions.
Q: If the majority of Canadians are against the seal hunt, why don't the policticans stop it?
Paul Watson: The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a bureaucracy run primarily by Newfoundlanders. They set the policy. Politicians have basically rubber-stamped the wishes of the bureaucrats. Most of the Fisheries Ministers have hailed from Newfoundland. Another problem is that there is much competition between the political parties to control Newfoundland and any party that opposes the seal hunt is out of the running. Therefore the parties have all agreed to support the hunt, leaving no alternatives for people who are opposed to the hunt. Even the Green Party of Newfoundland supports the seal kill for fear of losing votes.
Q: Does Canada benefit from the seal hunt?
Paul Watson: Canada receives a great deal of bad press because of the seal slaughter. It does not receive much in the way of income and the seal hunt contributes nothing to the Gross National Product of the country. On the contrary, the hunt is a negative drain on the economy because of tax dollars spent to subsidize it.
Q: There's a war going on and other animal species going extinct all around the world. Why should I care about Canadian seals?
Paul Watson: There is always a war going on someplace. People are continually fighting amongst themselves. There is also another war going on and that is the war against nature and against wildlife. All marine mammals are faced with extinction because of hunting, pollution, and destruction of habitat and carrying capacity. There is no justification for waging this, the world's largest slaughter of a marine mammalian species. In addition the hunt is cruel, economically wasteful, and plain and simply obscene.
credit Rei O'Hara
Q: What can I do about it?
Sea Shepherd: Get involved. Join the Sea Shepherd's Cyber Seal Navy or make a donation to help get our ship to the east coast of Canada in 2005.
Samantha E., a student at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, had some very good questions about the Canadian seal hunt. Following are her questions along with Captain Paul Watson's answers . . .
Friday, February 11th, 2005
Original email intro from Samantha:
"I am a geography student at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada who was asked to write a paper about the seal hunt. I was wondering if you could answer a few questions for me that would help me greatly. I have a due date of the 24th of February so if you could reply to me before then, it would be a great help. If you could give me a little information about yourself (such as name, age, location and job title) that would be helpful as well."
Dear Samatha, here are some answers to your questions.
Paul Watson background intro: I am the Founder and current Executive Director of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I am also currently a national director of the Sierra Club in the USA. I was a co-founder of the Greenpeace Foundation and I was the person who initiated and led the first Greenpeace campaigns to protect seals in 1976 and 1977. I am also the author of Seal Wars published in 2002 by Key Porter. I am also an eighth generation Maritimer raised in a fishing village in New Brunswick.
1. Seals eat fish as a main source of food, so do you think the hunting of seals would affect the number of fish found in the ocean by a great amount?
Paul Watson: Only 3% of a harp's seals diet is made up from Cod. There is a very complex food chain in the ocean and this diversity and interdependence has worked very well throughout time. The cod was not destroyed by the harp seals. The species was depleted by human fisheries.
At the time of Jacques Cartier, there was no shortage of fish and there were ten times as many seals. The fact is that the largest predator of cod aside from people are other species of fish, the very fish that harp seals prey upon. When you lower harp seal populations you increase predatory fish populations thereby contributing to a further decline in the cod. Rather than more seals less cod, it is more seals = more cod and less seals = less cod.
2. Would it make an impact on the fishery if we didn't hunt them? Would the fish stocks grow or remain stable?
Paul Watson: The seal populations would of course grow and that would be a good thing. As with all species within a healthy eco-system, the population would stabilize naturally.
3. Fisherman here in Newfoundland turned to the seal hunt when the fishery was closed down. So if they closed the seal industry as well, what would happen to the jobs then?
Paul Watson: The fishermen of Newfoundland survived just fine with traditional methods of fishing. It was the introduction of heavy gear technology that has destroyed the fishing communities of Newfoundland. The government of Canada mismanaged the fisheries and the corporations were greedy. Instead of targeting and scapegoating the seals, the fishermen should have targeted those responsible - the governments, the corporations and the foreign offshore operations.
The sad fact is that the cod fishery will not make a come back in our lifetimes. The fishing sector in the Maritimes has become a glorified welfare system. The Maritimes are now the most heavily subsidized economic region in the world. We would be better off and we would actually save more money to pay the fishermen not to fish and seal. As for jobs. There has never been a guarantee of jobs in a world of diminishing resources. Newfoundland is the victim of its own actions in violating the three basic laws of ecology - The law of diversity, the law of interdependence and the law of finite resources.
4. What is your opinion on the aboriginals use of seals? Is it wrong for them to kill seals and use all parts for their own personal needs? What about when they decide to make a profit from these seals?
Paul Watson: There is no aboriginal sealing in Newfoundland. There is in Labrador of course. Aboriginal sealing has never been a major concern. There is of course aboriginal sealing and there is aboriginal sealing. If it is done for subsistence necessity that is one thing but much of it is done to provide pelts for the fur industry. In opposing the fur industry, groups do of course oppose aboriginal sealing. But the fact remains that the fur industry has driven numerous species to extinction, extirpation and depletion. When aboriginal communities ally themselves with the fur industry they place themselves in a position of opposition to us.
5. Is boycotting all Canadian seafood a valid way to fight this argument? What about the fisherman and fish plant worker's losing their job's for having no involvement in the seal hunt simply because of the boycott? Is this fair?
Paul Watson: Is it fair for grown men to bash newborn animals over the head with a club? Is it fair for sealers to slaughter pups before the eyes of their mothers? Is it fair for humanity to disrupt the ecological harmony in the oceans? In fact is anything that humans do to the Earth, to other species and to each other - fair?
The fact is that the Canadian government refuses to communicate with seal hunt opponents, refuses to make concessions and arrogantly ups the quota and Ministers like John Efford brag about finding a final solution and call for extermination. Is that fair?
When all avenues of communication are cut off, the only means of communication is confrontation, controversy and conflict. Government and Industry understand money i.e. profit and loss. Therefore the only logical course of action is economic pressure. A boycott of seafood is a legitimate tactics designed to achieve a reduction or an elimination of seal killing. I think it is 100% fair.
6. Is there a way that both sides can come to a compromise on this argument? If so, how?
Paul Watson: The governments of Canada and Newfoundland have never shown a willingness to compromise. The only alternative for seal defenders is a no compromise economic campaign to force the closure of this obscene and cruel annual slaughter. I would not have compromised with the Nazi over the fate of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and I do not believe in compromising with the thugs who kill these seals.
7. Do you think the quota should be increased or decreased?
Paul Watson: I think the quota should be eliminated and that the seal hunt be ended permanently.
8. Do you think there is there a humane way to kill seals?
Paul Watson: No
9. Do you happen to know the price of seal pelts from 1990 to present day and what the quotas were? If not, can you direct me as to where I could find them?
Paul Watson: The government of Canada DFO has these figures. I am about as interested in the price of seal pelts as I would be about the price of human skins. The price is of no concern to me. My concern is for the cruelty and the killing inflicted upon these defenseless creatures by the ignorant and the arrogant.
FAQ
http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_faq.html
Frequently Asked Questions
Answered by Paul Watson
Q: I thought the Seal Hunt was shut down several decades ago - in the 1980's?
Paul Watson: The commercial hunt was shut down in 1983 after the European Union banned the seal pelts from market in Europe. The hunt was never shut down completely. An average of 60,000 seals were killed each year between 1984 and 1994. In 1995, the commercial hunt was brought back when a Newfoundlander named Brian Tobin became the Minister of Fisheries. This was two years after the cod fishery collapsed due to over-fishing. The fishermen blamed the seals for the decline of the cod and demanded a kill. Since 1994, the kill quota has risen each year. The kill for 2003 is 375,000 harps seals, the largest quota ever allocated by the Canadian government. Still the Newfoundlanders are not satisfied and are demanding that even more seals be killed. Some Newfoundland politicians have called for eradication. Greenpeace was one of the organizations opposing the hunt between 1976 and 1982. Although I was the Expedition Leader and organizer of the 1st Greenpeace campaign to the ice, it is a mistake to credit Greenpeace with ending the hunt. There were many other organizations involved including the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Fund for Animals and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. In 1984, Greenpeace changed it's policy and has refrained from opposition to the hunt.
Q: What happens to the seal meat after they are killed?
Paul Watson: Most of the meat is wasted and also left on the ice. Some if it is sold to fur farms and some is ground up into animal feed. A few thousand seal flippers are sold for human consumption in Newfoundland. There is a limited market for the seal penis to the Far East as some sort of voodoo quack remedy for impotence.
Q: How do they kill the seals?
Paul Watson: Most of the younger seals are killed with clubs or hakapiks in order to not downgrade their pelts with a bullet hole. Since older seals are faster, more aggressive, and can swim, most are shot at a distance with high powered rifles to limit their efforts at escape. (unless it's a clean shot, most wounded seals will head for the nearest open water where they often will simply slip away under the ice and perish.)
Some seals are caught in nets and die from drowning. Many seals are run down in the ice, especially by the Canadian government ice-breakers.
credit Bob Talbot
Q: Who kills seals?
Paul Watson: There are no indigenous peoples involved in the East coast Canadian seal hunt. Seals hunted by Inuit or Native people in the North are taken in the arctic and are primarily ringed seals. The Harp and Hood seals are hunted in the Gulf of St.Lawrence by residents of the Magdalen Islands in Quebec. These are French speaking people. The other location is called the Newfoundland Front in the Atlantic and this hunt is conducted by Newfoundlanders. As a point of interest there are no native people in Newfoundland. The last member of the Beothuk nation, the indigenous peoples of Newfoundland, died in 1912. The Newfoundlanders had a bounty on the Beothuk and most were slain by MicMac Indian bounty hunters from New Brunswick and Quebec. Newfoundlanders also drove the Newfoundland wolf, the walrus, and the Labrador duck to extinction and extirpated the polar bear, and the pilot whale from Newfoundland territory....
Q: Is there a blackmarket for any seal products?
Paul Watson: With the exception of the seal penis bone market in Asia, there is not really a black market for seal products because there is little demand for them. However, whenever a sealer exceeds his quota, there are no legal consequences. Sealers in Canada have a license to torture, mutilate, and kill over quota without fear of repercussions.
Q: If the majority of Canadians are against the seal hunt, why don't the policticans stop it?
Paul Watson: The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a bureaucracy run primarily by Newfoundlanders. They set the policy. Politicians have basically rubber-stamped the wishes of the bureaucrats. Most of the Fisheries Ministers have hailed from Newfoundland. Another problem is that there is much competition between the political parties to control Newfoundland and any party that opposes the seal hunt is out of the running. Therefore the parties have all agreed to support the hunt, leaving no alternatives for people who are opposed to the hunt. Even the Green Party of Newfoundland supports the seal kill for fear of losing votes.
Q: Does Canada benefit from the seal hunt?
Paul Watson: Canada receives a great deal of bad press because of the seal slaughter. It does not receive much in the way of income and the seal hunt contributes nothing to the Gross National Product of the country. On the contrary, the hunt is a negative drain on the economy because of tax dollars spent to subsidize it.
Q: There's a war going on and other animal species going extinct all around the world. Why should I care about Canadian seals?
Paul Watson: There is always a war going on someplace. People are continually fighting amongst themselves. There is also another war going on and that is the war against nature and against wildlife. All marine mammals are faced with extinction because of hunting, pollution, and destruction of habitat and carrying capacity. There is no justification for waging this, the world's largest slaughter of a marine mammalian species. In addition the hunt is cruel, economically wasteful, and plain and simply obscene.
credit Rei O'Hara
Q: What can I do about it?
Sea Shepherd: Get involved. Join the Sea Shepherd's Cyber Seal Navy or make a donation to help get our ship to the east coast of Canada in 2005.
Samantha E., a student at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, had some very good questions about the Canadian seal hunt. Following are her questions along with Captain Paul Watson's answers . . .
Friday, February 11th, 2005
Original email intro from Samantha:
"I am a geography student at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada who was asked to write a paper about the seal hunt. I was wondering if you could answer a few questions for me that would help me greatly. I have a due date of the 24th of February so if you could reply to me before then, it would be a great help. If you could give me a little information about yourself (such as name, age, location and job title) that would be helpful as well."
Dear Samatha, here are some answers to your questions.
Paul Watson background intro: I am the Founder and current Executive Director of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I am also currently a national director of the Sierra Club in the USA. I was a co-founder of the Greenpeace Foundation and I was the person who initiated and led the first Greenpeace campaigns to protect seals in 1976 and 1977. I am also the author of Seal Wars published in 2002 by Key Porter. I am also an eighth generation Maritimer raised in a fishing village in New Brunswick.
1. Seals eat fish as a main source of food, so do you think the hunting of seals would affect the number of fish found in the ocean by a great amount?
Paul Watson: Only 3% of a harp's seals diet is made up from Cod. There is a very complex food chain in the ocean and this diversity and interdependence has worked very well throughout time. The cod was not destroyed by the harp seals. The species was depleted by human fisheries.
At the time of Jacques Cartier, there was no shortage of fish and there were ten times as many seals. The fact is that the largest predator of cod aside from people are other species of fish, the very fish that harp seals prey upon. When you lower harp seal populations you increase predatory fish populations thereby contributing to a further decline in the cod. Rather than more seals less cod, it is more seals = more cod and less seals = less cod.
2. Would it make an impact on the fishery if we didn't hunt them? Would the fish stocks grow or remain stable?
Paul Watson: The seal populations would of course grow and that would be a good thing. As with all species within a healthy eco-system, the population would stabilize naturally.
3. Fisherman here in Newfoundland turned to the seal hunt when the fishery was closed down. So if they closed the seal industry as well, what would happen to the jobs then?
Paul Watson: The fishermen of Newfoundland survived just fine with traditional methods of fishing. It was the introduction of heavy gear technology that has destroyed the fishing communities of Newfoundland. The government of Canada mismanaged the fisheries and the corporations were greedy. Instead of targeting and scapegoating the seals, the fishermen should have targeted those responsible - the governments, the corporations and the foreign offshore operations.
The sad fact is that the cod fishery will not make a come back in our lifetimes. The fishing sector in the Maritimes has become a glorified welfare system. The Maritimes are now the most heavily subsidized economic region in the world. We would be better off and we would actually save more money to pay the fishermen not to fish and seal. As for jobs. There has never been a guarantee of jobs in a world of diminishing resources. Newfoundland is the victim of its own actions in violating the three basic laws of ecology - The law of diversity, the law of interdependence and the law of finite resources.
4. What is your opinion on the aboriginals use of seals? Is it wrong for them to kill seals and use all parts for their own personal needs? What about when they decide to make a profit from these seals?
Paul Watson: There is no aboriginal sealing in Newfoundland. There is in Labrador of course. Aboriginal sealing has never been a major concern. There is of course aboriginal sealing and there is aboriginal sealing. If it is done for subsistence necessity that is one thing but much of it is done to provide pelts for the fur industry. In opposing the fur industry, groups do of course oppose aboriginal sealing. But the fact remains that the fur industry has driven numerous species to extinction, extirpation and depletion. When aboriginal communities ally themselves with the fur industry they place themselves in a position of opposition to us.
5. Is boycotting all Canadian seafood a valid way to fight this argument? What about the fisherman and fish plant worker's losing their job's for having no involvement in the seal hunt simply because of the boycott? Is this fair?
Paul Watson: Is it fair for grown men to bash newborn animals over the head with a club? Is it fair for sealers to slaughter pups before the eyes of their mothers? Is it fair for humanity to disrupt the ecological harmony in the oceans? In fact is anything that humans do to the Earth, to other species and to each other - fair?
The fact is that the Canadian government refuses to communicate with seal hunt opponents, refuses to make concessions and arrogantly ups the quota and Ministers like John Efford brag about finding a final solution and call for extermination. Is that fair?
When all avenues of communication are cut off, the only means of communication is confrontation, controversy and conflict. Government and Industry understand money i.e. profit and loss. Therefore the only logical course of action is economic pressure. A boycott of seafood is a legitimate tactics designed to achieve a reduction or an elimination of seal killing. I think it is 100% fair.
6. Is there a way that both sides can come to a compromise on this argument? If so, how?
Paul Watson: The governments of Canada and Newfoundland have never shown a willingness to compromise. The only alternative for seal defenders is a no compromise economic campaign to force the closure of this obscene and cruel annual slaughter. I would not have compromised with the Nazi over the fate of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and I do not believe in compromising with the thugs who kill these seals.
7. Do you think the quota should be increased or decreased?
Paul Watson: I think the quota should be eliminated and that the seal hunt be ended permanently.
8. Do you think there is there a humane way to kill seals?
Paul Watson: No
9. Do you happen to know the price of seal pelts from 1990 to present day and what the quotas were? If not, can you direct me as to where I could find them?
Paul Watson: The government of Canada DFO has these figures. I am about as interested in the price of seal pelts as I would be about the price of human skins. The price is of no concern to me. My concern is for the cruelty and the killing inflicted upon these defenseless creatures by the ignorant and the arrogant.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Why the Recent Convictions of Animal Rights Activists Have Nothing to Do With Terrorism, but Everything to Do With Money and Politics
I’ve said it before – if the government was really interested in stopping terrorism, they’d hit the far right wing groups who actually have killed people. In contrast, the animal rights movement has killed NO ONE. So why not go after far right wing groups and instead go after people who have killed or harmed no one? Well, money and politics.
The article below discusses this. It’s pretty clear when you see the name of the law the US govt. developed - the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Just consider the following quotes taken from the article:
“FBI spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan says there have never been any deaths or injuries in the U.S. attributable to animal rights or environmental terrorism.
By comparison, radical right-wingers killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Since then, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, police have uncovered 60 more right-wing plots, including plans to assassinate judges, bomb synagogues and destroy mosques.
In 2000, the head of Pittsburgh's tiny Free Market Party killed five and critically wounded a sixth. Three years later, a neo-Nazi videotaped himself firebombing a synagogue.
Yet in spite of this, as the Alabama-based law centre points out, the U.S. government has decided the radical right presents little or no threat.
And the FBI says illegal activities of the extreme right have been eclipsed by the "special interest terrorism" of the animal rights and environmental movements.
It's a big business. George Goodno, spokesman for the Washington-based Foundation for Medical Research — an organization set up to promote the virtues of animal testing — estimates the U.S. industry alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. "One (genetically modified) mouse can cost $10,000," he says.
And that's just on the testing side. The animal business also includes farmers, slaughterhouses, restaurants, furriers and ranchers.
All of which helps to explain the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, an otherwise inexplicable U.S. law that singles out property crimes against businesses that use animals and treats them more seriously than similar offences against other organizations.
Passed in 1992, the law was initially viewed as one of those quirky American statutes that make for good politics but difficult jurisprudence.”
Article:
U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists
Kevin Kjonaas set up a website with details about businesses that use animals for research information, and now he and five other activists have been convicted of inciting terrorism
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=
thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=11422038100
52&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist96990
7626796
Mar. 13, 2006. 07:49 AM
THOMAS WALKOM
TRENTON, N.J.—Kevin Kjonaas is an unlikely casualty of George W. Bush's war against terror.
No one, including the U.S. government attorneys who just finished prosecuting him for so-called animal enterprise terrorism, says that the 28-year-old Minnesota native killed anyone — or even hurt anyone.
He's never planted a bomb or sent anthrax through the mail.
The government doesn't claim Kjonaas damaged property — or knowingly provided material assistance to anyone who did.
"I've been an ass," Kjonaas acknowledged days before a Trenton jury found him guilty of inciting terrorism. "Some of the things I've done have been just rude, and I wouldn't do them again. But am I legally responsible (for the crimes the government accused him of)? No."
However, earlier this month, Kjonaas and five others ranging in age from 27 to 31 became the first people convicted under a 1992 U.S. law — significantly beefed up after 9/11 — that defines as terrorists those who damage firms involved in the animal business.
Along with another case in Oregon, this one involving radical environmentalists, the New Jersey trial marks a significant step forward in the Bush administration's decision to bring the war on terror home for use against those it views as its new domestic enemies.
"This is just the starting gun," says David Martosko, research director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization funded by the U.S. restaurant industry and a fierce opponent of animal rights.
He says the government should move against more mainstream organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the Humane Society of the United States, which he calls "the farm teams for the eco-terror problem."
Curiously, for a case with such serious implications, none of those convicted in Trenton is alleged to have carried out any of the substantive crimes laid out in the indictment — from property damage to intimidation.
Prosecutors didn't provide evidence they knew the perpetrators or had ever communicated directly with them. Rather, the six were convicted of running an Internet site that allowed others access to information that could be used in crimes.
They call themselves the SHAC Six, after the acronym of their animal rights group — Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.
They could be called the Internet Six.
Animals arouse strong and contradictory passions. We fuss over pet dogs and weep when, as happened in Toronto recently, a police horse is hit by a car.
Yet we support laws that legalize, and in some cases require, the killing of animals.
In both the U.S. and Canada, federal laws demand that virtually all new pharmaceuticals be tested on animals.
The active ingredients of household products, such as cleansers or cosmetics, are also routinely tested on animals, although in Canada at least there are no statutory requirements.
Usually, the animals are killed afterwards so that autopsies can be performed.
It's a big business. George Goodno, spokesman for the Washington-based Foundation for Medical Research — an organization set up to promote the virtues of animal testing — estimates the U.S. industry alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. "One (genetically modified) mouse can cost $10,000," he says.
And that's just on the testing side. The animal business also includes farmers, slaughterhouses, restaurants, furriers and ranchers.
All of which helps to explain the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, an otherwise inexplicable U.S. law that singles out property crimes against businesses that use animals and treats them more seriously than similar offences against other organizations.
Passed in 1992, the law was initially viewed as one of those quirky American statutes that make for good politics but difficult jurisprudence.
But then two things happened.
First, radical animal rights protestors changed their tactics. No longer content to liberate animals held in labs and mink farms, they mounted sophisticated public campaigns against firms involved in animal testing.
To the alarm of the animal industry, some of these campaigns were successful.
The second was 9/11. After September 2001, anything labelled terrorism was anathema in America.
In mid-2002, under industry pressure, Congress quietly strengthened the animal enterprise protection act. Without formally changing its name, legislators also began to refer to it routinely as the "animal enterprise terrorism act."
In 2004, a senior FBI official told a congressional subcommittee that animal rights and environmental militants had become "the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States."
Like much of the militant animal rights movement, SHAC started in England. Founded in 1999, it was aimed at Britain's biggest animal research firm, Huntingdon Life Sciences.
A video aired on television that showed some Huntingdon employees deliberately abusing test animals gave the campaign particular piquancy. By 2001, protestors had driven the firm almost to bankruptcy.
Not all of the militants' tactics were peaceful. In one celebrated instance, two men beat Huntingdon's managing director with baseball bats.
While SHAC denounced the attack, this beating — as well as instances of threats, vandalism and firebombing — added a disturbing aura of thuggery to its protest.
Far more damaging to Huntingdon, however, were SHAC's successful attempts to persuade other companies not to do business with the firm. Tactics ranged from boycott threats to protests staged outside the homes of employees.
By 2001, after losing its major bank lender, its broker and many of its customers, Huntingdon fled across the Atlantic.
SHAC followed too.
Kjonaas, already an animal activist, had come across the SHAC campaign while visiting England. On returning home, he and a few others set up SHAC-USA Inc. which, like its English parent, was remarkably successful in convincing firms and financiers not to do business with Huntingdon.
The protestors' biggest coup occurred last year when, at the last minute and without explanation, the New York Stock Exchange refused to list Huntingdon on its big board.
"It's become almost impossible to trade our shares," Mike Caulfield, general manager of Huntingdon's U.S. operations told the Star.
At the Trenton trial, witnesses testified that SHAC-USA neither organized nor controlled the anti-Huntingdon demonstrations. Rather it acted as an information clearing house.
Details of anti-Huntingdon protests were usually e-mailed to SHAC-USA which would put them on its website. Similarly, home addresses for corporate officers and other employees of target companies would be posted. Gleaned from public sources such as annual reports and phone books, they would include a disclaimer saying SHAC-USA advocated only legal protest.
Still, there were problems.
A legal home protest might involve a vanload of demonstrators arriving outside an employee's residence to scream insults and pass out leaflets accusing the target of killing puppies.
In some cases, the strategy involved targeting people with only the most roundabout relationship to animal testing.
Amy Hessler, a patent agent for a company that did business with Huntingdon, testified that until her home was picketed she had never heard of the firm.
"I was scared for my life," she said. At times, demonstrators would pound on her door and shout obscenities or phone her anonymously to ask why she abused animals.
And that was the second big problem for SHAC. Regardless of its website disclaimer, some people — never identified — did engage in acts that were clearly illegal. Most notable was the bombing in 2003 of a California drug firm that did business with Huntingdon. While it caused no injuries, there was considerable property damage.
To the Trenton jury, other examples raised in court may have been even more disturbing.
Insurance executive Sally Dillenback testified she received an anonymous email asking how she'd feel if her 7-year-old son were treated like a Huntington lab animal and had his stomach slit open to be filled with poison.
Eventually, Dillenback's company, Marsh USA, dropped Huntingdon as a client.
In person, Kevin Kjonaas seems quite unlike the fire-breathing radical described by prosecutors. Slight and soft-spoken, he remains unfailingly polite as a reporter quizzes him, over dinner, on the animal movement's tactics and his role in them.
"I still think residential picketing is a good idea," he says. "It's been done for ages. Look at Cindy Sheehan (the U.S. peace activist who held a vigil outside of Bush's ranch). But not all of it is appropriate right now and not all of it is savoury."
Recalling Dillenback's testimony, he sighs.
"If I had to do it over again, I'd censor more of those Web postings and be less aggressive and confrontational, so that no one could perceive us as a threat, only as an embarrassment.
"We want to put pressure on those people (involved in animal testing) but we don't want them to think their children are going to be abducted. That's ridiculous... The tone and tenor need to change, not just from a PR perspective but because we represent a noble cause...
"The American public supports violence at times," he goes on, picking at his vegetarian curry. "But the animal rights movement is not at the stage now where violence or the rhetoric of violence is appropriate... It's not even close."
Perhaps what is most puzzling about both this case and another getting underway in Oregon is the sheer amount of government energy expended.
True, animal and environmental radicals have claimed responsibility for actions that destroyed property worth tens of thousands of dollars.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research calculates illegal acts by animal and environmental extremists have increased 1,000 per cent over the past decade. But even so, the absolute numbers (82 incidents in 2005) remain miniscule.
FBI spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan says there have never been any deaths or injuries in the U.S. attributable to animal rights or environmental terrorism.
By comparison, radical right-wingers killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Since then, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, police have uncovered 60 more right-wing plots, including plans to assassinate judges, bomb synagogues and destroy mosques.
In 2000, the head of Pittsburgh's tiny Free Market Party killed five and critically wounded a sixth. Three years later, a neo-Nazi videotaped himself firebombing a synagogue.
Yet in spite of this, as the Alabama-based law centre points out, the U.S. government has decided the radical right presents little or no threat.
And the FBI says illegal activities of the extreme right have been eclipsed by the "special interest terrorism" of the animal rights and environmental movements.
Meanwhile, Kjonaas and his fellow defendants await sentencing. The SHAC-USA websites have been shut down. A proposed law would make it easier for the FBI to electronically eavesdrop on animal and environmental groups, and more difficult for groups to mount campaigns against companies.
It's not clear what difference any of this makes.
Another organization, Win Animal Rights has taken over the anti-Huntingdon protests. "The train has left the station," says Pamelyn Ferdin, a Los Angeles animal rights activist recruited to formally run SHAC after Kjonaas was indicted.
"When activists see above ground people getting put in jail, they're just going to get mad."
The article below discusses this. It’s pretty clear when you see the name of the law the US govt. developed - the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Just consider the following quotes taken from the article:
“FBI spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan says there have never been any deaths or injuries in the U.S. attributable to animal rights or environmental terrorism.
By comparison, radical right-wingers killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Since then, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, police have uncovered 60 more right-wing plots, including plans to assassinate judges, bomb synagogues and destroy mosques.
In 2000, the head of Pittsburgh's tiny Free Market Party killed five and critically wounded a sixth. Three years later, a neo-Nazi videotaped himself firebombing a synagogue.
Yet in spite of this, as the Alabama-based law centre points out, the U.S. government has decided the radical right presents little or no threat.
And the FBI says illegal activities of the extreme right have been eclipsed by the "special interest terrorism" of the animal rights and environmental movements.
It's a big business. George Goodno, spokesman for the Washington-based Foundation for Medical Research — an organization set up to promote the virtues of animal testing — estimates the U.S. industry alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. "One (genetically modified) mouse can cost $10,000," he says.
And that's just on the testing side. The animal business also includes farmers, slaughterhouses, restaurants, furriers and ranchers.
All of which helps to explain the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, an otherwise inexplicable U.S. law that singles out property crimes against businesses that use animals and treats them more seriously than similar offences against other organizations.
Passed in 1992, the law was initially viewed as one of those quirky American statutes that make for good politics but difficult jurisprudence.”
Article:
U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists
Kevin Kjonaas set up a website with details about businesses that use animals for research information, and now he and five other activists have been convicted of inciting terrorism
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=
thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=11422038100
52&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist96990
7626796
Mar. 13, 2006. 07:49 AM
THOMAS WALKOM
TRENTON, N.J.—Kevin Kjonaas is an unlikely casualty of George W. Bush's war against terror.
No one, including the U.S. government attorneys who just finished prosecuting him for so-called animal enterprise terrorism, says that the 28-year-old Minnesota native killed anyone — or even hurt anyone.
He's never planted a bomb or sent anthrax through the mail.
The government doesn't claim Kjonaas damaged property — or knowingly provided material assistance to anyone who did.
"I've been an ass," Kjonaas acknowledged days before a Trenton jury found him guilty of inciting terrorism. "Some of the things I've done have been just rude, and I wouldn't do them again. But am I legally responsible (for the crimes the government accused him of)? No."
However, earlier this month, Kjonaas and five others ranging in age from 27 to 31 became the first people convicted under a 1992 U.S. law — significantly beefed up after 9/11 — that defines as terrorists those who damage firms involved in the animal business.
Along with another case in Oregon, this one involving radical environmentalists, the New Jersey trial marks a significant step forward in the Bush administration's decision to bring the war on terror home for use against those it views as its new domestic enemies.
"This is just the starting gun," says David Martosko, research director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization funded by the U.S. restaurant industry and a fierce opponent of animal rights.
He says the government should move against more mainstream organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or the Humane Society of the United States, which he calls "the farm teams for the eco-terror problem."
Curiously, for a case with such serious implications, none of those convicted in Trenton is alleged to have carried out any of the substantive crimes laid out in the indictment — from property damage to intimidation.
Prosecutors didn't provide evidence they knew the perpetrators or had ever communicated directly with them. Rather, the six were convicted of running an Internet site that allowed others access to information that could be used in crimes.
They call themselves the SHAC Six, after the acronym of their animal rights group — Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.
They could be called the Internet Six.
Animals arouse strong and contradictory passions. We fuss over pet dogs and weep when, as happened in Toronto recently, a police horse is hit by a car.
Yet we support laws that legalize, and in some cases require, the killing of animals.
In both the U.S. and Canada, federal laws demand that virtually all new pharmaceuticals be tested on animals.
The active ingredients of household products, such as cleansers or cosmetics, are also routinely tested on animals, although in Canada at least there are no statutory requirements.
Usually, the animals are killed afterwards so that autopsies can be performed.
It's a big business. George Goodno, spokesman for the Washington-based Foundation for Medical Research — an organization set up to promote the virtues of animal testing — estimates the U.S. industry alone is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. "One (genetically modified) mouse can cost $10,000," he says.
And that's just on the testing side. The animal business also includes farmers, slaughterhouses, restaurants, furriers and ranchers.
All of which helps to explain the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, an otherwise inexplicable U.S. law that singles out property crimes against businesses that use animals and treats them more seriously than similar offences against other organizations.
Passed in 1992, the law was initially viewed as one of those quirky American statutes that make for good politics but difficult jurisprudence.
But then two things happened.
First, radical animal rights protestors changed their tactics. No longer content to liberate animals held in labs and mink farms, they mounted sophisticated public campaigns against firms involved in animal testing.
To the alarm of the animal industry, some of these campaigns were successful.
The second was 9/11. After September 2001, anything labelled terrorism was anathema in America.
In mid-2002, under industry pressure, Congress quietly strengthened the animal enterprise protection act. Without formally changing its name, legislators also began to refer to it routinely as the "animal enterprise terrorism act."
In 2004, a senior FBI official told a congressional subcommittee that animal rights and environmental militants had become "the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States."
Like much of the militant animal rights movement, SHAC started in England. Founded in 1999, it was aimed at Britain's biggest animal research firm, Huntingdon Life Sciences.
A video aired on television that showed some Huntingdon employees deliberately abusing test animals gave the campaign particular piquancy. By 2001, protestors had driven the firm almost to bankruptcy.
Not all of the militants' tactics were peaceful. In one celebrated instance, two men beat Huntingdon's managing director with baseball bats.
While SHAC denounced the attack, this beating — as well as instances of threats, vandalism and firebombing — added a disturbing aura of thuggery to its protest.
Far more damaging to Huntingdon, however, were SHAC's successful attempts to persuade other companies not to do business with the firm. Tactics ranged from boycott threats to protests staged outside the homes of employees.
By 2001, after losing its major bank lender, its broker and many of its customers, Huntingdon fled across the Atlantic.
SHAC followed too.
Kjonaas, already an animal activist, had come across the SHAC campaign while visiting England. On returning home, he and a few others set up SHAC-USA Inc. which, like its English parent, was remarkably successful in convincing firms and financiers not to do business with Huntingdon.
The protestors' biggest coup occurred last year when, at the last minute and without explanation, the New York Stock Exchange refused to list Huntingdon on its big board.
"It's become almost impossible to trade our shares," Mike Caulfield, general manager of Huntingdon's U.S. operations told the Star.
At the Trenton trial, witnesses testified that SHAC-USA neither organized nor controlled the anti-Huntingdon demonstrations. Rather it acted as an information clearing house.
Details of anti-Huntingdon protests were usually e-mailed to SHAC-USA which would put them on its website. Similarly, home addresses for corporate officers and other employees of target companies would be posted. Gleaned from public sources such as annual reports and phone books, they would include a disclaimer saying SHAC-USA advocated only legal protest.
Still, there were problems.
A legal home protest might involve a vanload of demonstrators arriving outside an employee's residence to scream insults and pass out leaflets accusing the target of killing puppies.
In some cases, the strategy involved targeting people with only the most roundabout relationship to animal testing.
Amy Hessler, a patent agent for a company that did business with Huntingdon, testified that until her home was picketed she had never heard of the firm.
"I was scared for my life," she said. At times, demonstrators would pound on her door and shout obscenities or phone her anonymously to ask why she abused animals.
And that was the second big problem for SHAC. Regardless of its website disclaimer, some people — never identified — did engage in acts that were clearly illegal. Most notable was the bombing in 2003 of a California drug firm that did business with Huntingdon. While it caused no injuries, there was considerable property damage.
To the Trenton jury, other examples raised in court may have been even more disturbing.
Insurance executive Sally Dillenback testified she received an anonymous email asking how she'd feel if her 7-year-old son were treated like a Huntington lab animal and had his stomach slit open to be filled with poison.
Eventually, Dillenback's company, Marsh USA, dropped Huntingdon as a client.
In person, Kevin Kjonaas seems quite unlike the fire-breathing radical described by prosecutors. Slight and soft-spoken, he remains unfailingly polite as a reporter quizzes him, over dinner, on the animal movement's tactics and his role in them.
"I still think residential picketing is a good idea," he says. "It's been done for ages. Look at Cindy Sheehan (the U.S. peace activist who held a vigil outside of Bush's ranch). But not all of it is appropriate right now and not all of it is savoury."
Recalling Dillenback's testimony, he sighs.
"If I had to do it over again, I'd censor more of those Web postings and be less aggressive and confrontational, so that no one could perceive us as a threat, only as an embarrassment.
"We want to put pressure on those people (involved in animal testing) but we don't want them to think their children are going to be abducted. That's ridiculous... The tone and tenor need to change, not just from a PR perspective but because we represent a noble cause...
"The American public supports violence at times," he goes on, picking at his vegetarian curry. "But the animal rights movement is not at the stage now where violence or the rhetoric of violence is appropriate... It's not even close."
Perhaps what is most puzzling about both this case and another getting underway in Oregon is the sheer amount of government energy expended.
True, animal and environmental radicals have claimed responsibility for actions that destroyed property worth tens of thousands of dollars.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research calculates illegal acts by animal and environmental extremists have increased 1,000 per cent over the past decade. But even so, the absolute numbers (82 incidents in 2005) remain miniscule.
FBI spokeswoman Cathy Milhoan says there have never been any deaths or injuries in the U.S. attributable to animal rights or environmental terrorism.
By comparison, radical right-wingers killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Since then, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, police have uncovered 60 more right-wing plots, including plans to assassinate judges, bomb synagogues and destroy mosques.
In 2000, the head of Pittsburgh's tiny Free Market Party killed five and critically wounded a sixth. Three years later, a neo-Nazi videotaped himself firebombing a synagogue.
Yet in spite of this, as the Alabama-based law centre points out, the U.S. government has decided the radical right presents little or no threat.
And the FBI says illegal activities of the extreme right have been eclipsed by the "special interest terrorism" of the animal rights and environmental movements.
Meanwhile, Kjonaas and his fellow defendants await sentencing. The SHAC-USA websites have been shut down. A proposed law would make it easier for the FBI to electronically eavesdrop on animal and environmental groups, and more difficult for groups to mount campaigns against companies.
It's not clear what difference any of this makes.
Another organization, Win Animal Rights has taken over the anti-Huntingdon protests. "The train has left the station," says Pamelyn Ferdin, a Los Angeles animal rights activist recruited to formally run SHAC after Kjonaas was indicted.
"When activists see above ground people getting put in jail, they're just going to get mad."
Friday, March 10, 2006
Trent Reznor of the band Nine Inch Nails Helps Produce and Narrate a New Undercover Fur Video Exposing the Gruesome Cat and Dog Fur Trade in China
I wrote a while back on fur and China. Please see that post at: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/02/
cruel-china-keeps-up-its-status-as.html
I’m glad to see someone of Trent’s stature putting their concern out there. Most stars just sit back and please themselves. Here is an excerpt from the video. The link if found below.
“Workers kick and stomp on the cages and jab the animals with sticks to get them out, then their weakened bodies are bludgeoned, hanged, bled, or strangled with wire nooses to kill them. Many of the cats and dogs still have collars on, proof that they were someone’s beloved companions,” says Trent in the new video.
http://www.furisdead.com/feat-trentreznor.asp
cruel-china-keeps-up-its-status-as.html
I’m glad to see someone of Trent’s stature putting their concern out there. Most stars just sit back and please themselves. Here is an excerpt from the video. The link if found below.
“Workers kick and stomp on the cages and jab the animals with sticks to get them out, then their weakened bodies are bludgeoned, hanged, bled, or strangled with wire nooses to kill them. Many of the cats and dogs still have collars on, proof that they were someone’s beloved companions,” says Trent in the new video.
http://www.furisdead.com/feat-trentreznor.asp
Twisted Soldiers in Cyprus Light Dog on Fire and then Laugh and Sing
Unfortunately, this is very common behavior for soldiers regardless of the location. They become so twisted to life that they result to animal abuse. Whether it’s blowing up camels in Iraq or doing this, it’s common. So all forms of life are casualties of war.
Animal rights activists condemn ‘appalling acts’
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/
main.php?id=24741&cat_id=1
By John Leonidou
THE Cyprus Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CSPCA) yesterday held a press conference condemning the recent torture and killing of a dog by National Guard Conscripts.
On Friday night the private television station Sigma aired a clip of the mobile video footage, which showed the helpless dog racing about and howling in agony to the laughter and singing of soldiers.
The video clip, which is believed to have been recorded one year ago, had been forwarded around for some time until it came into the possession of a reporter, who was so disgusted with its content that he decided to air the clip before the public.
CSPCA Chairwoman Toula Poyiatzis described the recent attack on the dog as “appalling” adding that it was not the first time that her organisation had been informed about cruelty to dogs and cats by National Guard conscripts.
“We have heard many other cases of soldiers battering to death animals like dogs and cats although the Ministry of Defence will not confirm this arguing for some reason that these cases are rare and not frequent.”
Meanwhile lawyer Michalis Stamataris, who is also a member of the organisation, told the Cyprus Mail that the island was not implementing laws to protect animal rights and that people torturing or killing animals are getting away with blue murder.
“It is unfortunately a fact that the Republic has not implemented an EU legislation preventing the cruelty of animals and it is something which the island has to implement before it gets into trouble. For example a person inflicting cruelty on to an animal could be handed a 12-month prison sentence and fined up to £1,000. If that same person is again caught torturing animal then he could get up to 24 months in prison and face a fine of up to £2,000.
“Also the police have to be tougher when it comes to cases of animal cruelty. It is common knowledge that police officers brush aside cases that are reported of animal cases. If they took action against people being cruel to animals then perhaps those culprits would think again.”
But inflicting cruelty to animals could have worst implications explained Stamataris who warned that youngsters imposing cruelty to animals have many times go on to do far worse to humans. Most serial killers also have a history in which they have inflicted cruelty on animals.
“It is a worry when you think about the character a person would have if they are able to inflict such horrible things on an animal. If anything, we should think about the future; if at 17 and 18 they are burning dogs and battering cats then what will happen when they grow up and join society.”
Animal rights activists condemn ‘appalling acts’
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/
main.php?id=24741&cat_id=1
By John Leonidou
THE Cyprus Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CSPCA) yesterday held a press conference condemning the recent torture and killing of a dog by National Guard Conscripts.
On Friday night the private television station Sigma aired a clip of the mobile video footage, which showed the helpless dog racing about and howling in agony to the laughter and singing of soldiers.
The video clip, which is believed to have been recorded one year ago, had been forwarded around for some time until it came into the possession of a reporter, who was so disgusted with its content that he decided to air the clip before the public.
CSPCA Chairwoman Toula Poyiatzis described the recent attack on the dog as “appalling” adding that it was not the first time that her organisation had been informed about cruelty to dogs and cats by National Guard conscripts.
“We have heard many other cases of soldiers battering to death animals like dogs and cats although the Ministry of Defence will not confirm this arguing for some reason that these cases are rare and not frequent.”
Meanwhile lawyer Michalis Stamataris, who is also a member of the organisation, told the Cyprus Mail that the island was not implementing laws to protect animal rights and that people torturing or killing animals are getting away with blue murder.
“It is unfortunately a fact that the Republic has not implemented an EU legislation preventing the cruelty of animals and it is something which the island has to implement before it gets into trouble. For example a person inflicting cruelty on to an animal could be handed a 12-month prison sentence and fined up to £1,000. If that same person is again caught torturing animal then he could get up to 24 months in prison and face a fine of up to £2,000.
“Also the police have to be tougher when it comes to cases of animal cruelty. It is common knowledge that police officers brush aside cases that are reported of animal cases. If they took action against people being cruel to animals then perhaps those culprits would think again.”
But inflicting cruelty to animals could have worst implications explained Stamataris who warned that youngsters imposing cruelty to animals have many times go on to do far worse to humans. Most serial killers also have a history in which they have inflicted cruelty on animals.
“It is a worry when you think about the character a person would have if they are able to inflict such horrible things on an animal. If anything, we should think about the future; if at 17 and 18 they are burning dogs and battering cats then what will happen when they grow up and join society.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search for More Content
Custom Search
