Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Activists Sentenced To 4 to 6 Yrs Under The Animal Enterprise Protection Act

Funny how animal cruelty laws would definitely apply to people outside of the halls of the companies engaging in animal torture, but inside the walls, it’s legal. See any sort of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance here? If you poured chemicals into the eyes and stomach of a beagle you’d be arrested. But they can do what ever they want with whatever they want and it’s all legal under the guise of science. The name of the act itself truly defines what these businesses do.

Sign of things to come under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a federal law amended in 2002 to equate its offences with terrorism. Put another way, a law created and amended by business leaders for business leaders.


Article:

US animal rights activists sentenced to 4 to 6 yrs

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?

type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-12T212240Z_01_

N12308921_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-ANIMALS.xml

Tue Sep 12, 2006 10:22 PM BST

By Jon Hurdle

TRENTON, New Jersey (Reuters) - Three animal rights activists convicted under a U.S. anti-terrorism law were sentenced to up to 6 years in prison on Tuesday for a campaign against a British company that tests chemicals on animals.

Prosecutors called the leader of the activists "drunk on power" and the judge said he showed "almost vengeful anger" in a campaign to drive out of business Huntingdon Life Sciences, which tests pharmaceuticals, chemicals and dyes on animals.

The company says on its Web site it uses mice, rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, sheep, cows, fish, birds and monkeys.

In March, six members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, or SHAC, including the three sentenced on Tuesday, were found guilty of violating the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a federal law amended in 2002 to equate its offences with terrorism.

It marked the first trial and conviction under that law, federal officials said.

The three had also been found guilty of conspiracy and interstate stalking against employees of Huntingdon's New Jersey operations for urging sympathisers to harass Huntingdon employees, vandalise their cars and publish their names and personal data on the Internet.

Defence attorneys argued that the defendants were exercising their free-speech rights, and SHAC said it was the victim of a government crackdown on dissent.

U.S. District Judge Anne Thompson sentenced former SHAC president Kevin Kjonaas six years in prison.

She rejected defence arguments that Kjonaas, 28, had been motivated by a noble commitment to social justice and just got carried away. Rather, she said, Kjonaas showed his "almost vengeful anger" in devising ways to hurt the company.

U.S. Attorney Charles McKenna, who had sought sentences of up to 10 years, said Kjonaas had cunningly manipulated others in SHAC to get his own way.

"This is a crime of sheer power," McKenna said. "Mr. Kjonaas was drunk on power."

Lauren Gazzola, 27, SHAC's former campaign co-ordinator, was sentenced to 52 months in prison. Jacob Conroy, 30, was sentenced to 4 years.

Kjonaas's lawyer, Robert Stahl, vowed to appeal the convictions and a spokeswoman for SHAC said the sentences would not deter the group from protesting against Huntingdon.

Three other SHAC defendants will be sentenced in coming days.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Truth Behind Captive Dolphins and Whales: Once Wild and Then Stolen: No Evidence to Support Benefits of Captive Dolphins

Remember, the captive dolphins were once free and had to be captured. So, for those who haven’t gotten it yet – they were stolen from their packs in the wild!!

For a good synopsis on how dolphins are captured and all else related to dolphin stealing and captivity see
http://old.handzon.com/dolphinproject/subdetail.cfm?menu_id=
537&submenu_id=331


For the article below, they are very clear on why people steal and then make captive dolphins – money!! As the author puts it, “…it could portray the Cayman Islands as a 'Johnny-come-lately' gimmicky destination scrabbling for whatever ... tourism dollar there is remaining.”

Article:

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
No evidence to support benefits of captive dolphins

http://www.caymannetnews.com/index.shtml

Monday, September 11, 2006

Dear Sir:

RE: Captive Dolphin facilities defended Caymanian Compass - 08/31/06

The article mentions repeatedly that the Minister of Tourism "believes" this and that about the captive-dolphin tourist abusement industry being good for the Cayman Islands. But nowhere does he offer a single piece of evidence to support any of his "beliefs".

Many individuals and organizations, including our own, have accumulated and will continue to share with Government a growing body of evidence showing why dolphins should remain free, for the benefit of both the dolphins and the Cayman Islands.

Successive Ministers of Tourism and Environment have ignored the advice of their own advisory agencies, following only the promoters of the captive-dolphin industry.

On March 18, 2002, the Animals Law established the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Its function is to advise the Minister of Agriculture on matters relating to animals. This committee has never been allowed to submit a recommendation on dolphins to the Ministry of Agriculture, which has primary responsibility for the importation of all animals, including dolphins.

On August 21, 2003, the government-appointed Marine Conservation Board (MCB) advised the Ministry of Tourism and Environment why the government should not encourage the establishment of this industry in the Cayman Islands.

The MCB's concerns about the captive-dolphin industry coming to the Cayman Islands included "...our image as a tourist destination known for its marine resources conservation". The letter went on to say: "... we pose the following with respect to the issue of cruelty, as well as inappropriateness, of such a facility ... it is downright cruel to keep captive, in any restricted enclosure, this animal whose physiological and psychological needs are so ... adapted to ... the open ocean environment. ... it could portray the Cayman Islands as a 'Johnny-come-lately' gimmicky destination scrabbling for whatever ... tourism dollar there is remaining ... when potential visitors realize that we no longer have any unique quality experience to offer in preference to those of a number of other, lower-cost destinations."

The MCB is also alarmed about the stresses that would be placed on our economically important North Sound marine environment because of raw wastewater discharge from captive-dolphin facilities.

The Minister of Tourism and Environment insinuates that the Cayman Islands Tourism Association (CITA) membership-supported policy that dolphins should remain free is based on their fear of competition in the "water activities market". Comments from watersports operators have never been about competition but have focused on the negative effects that captive-dolphin programmes could have on tourism, protection of the environment, and positioning Cayman as a leader, not a follower.

Mr. Minister, stop ignoring the advice of your own Government advisory boards, tourism industry organizations, and proud long-time friends and promoters of "Product Cayman"

"I believe that their systems and permits will ensure that our environment is not negatively impacted," states the Minister. What systems? What regulations? There are NO regulations in effect for captive marine mammals. The Animal Welfare Advisory Board has issued no regulations; the Department of Agriculture, which is issuing the import permits, has no regulations to follow. It seems that by default we as a country are going to accept the recommendations of the developers of these parks to establish operating standards. Surely this is a conflict of interest.

Mr. Minister, your attitude does not bode well for our future. We ask you to examine the evidence that dolphins are better off free; then, if you determine otherwise, explain how you concluded that it is good for the dolphins and the Cayman Islands that they should be held in captivity here.

The supporters and operators of the captive-dolphin industry are experts at avoiding revelation of the horrible facts of the industry and go to great lengths to hide their operations from public view. The reason is simple: to sell more tickets, they must maintain the myth that captive dolphins are always frolicking and happy. The fact is that dolphins are "dying to entertain".

Government has not been open on this issue, and many questions remain unanswered. Government may continue to encourage the establishment of this copycat industry here in the Cayman Islands, but the fight for dolphins to remain free will go on here and worldwide, as it is a dying industry.

In this age of environmentally aware tourists, what image do we wish to project to our tourism customers?

Who is willing to stand up and defend "Product Cayman" and our natural environment, now on sale at rock-bottom prices to the highest bidder?

Apparently, not our Minister of Tourism and Environment.

William H. Adam - Keep dolphins free in the Cayman Islands

Monday, September 11, 2006

US House Goes Against White House and Votes to Outlaw Slaughtering of Horses for Food

A great step and a giant message. Remember that the House rarely goes against the White House. This seriously is a rare event as the White House fully supports slaughtering horses for food. Here’s a good idea of how twisted their logic of support is: "We have serious concerns that the welfare of these horses would be negatively impacted by a ban on slaughter," Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in a letter released Thursday. Okayyyyy. So stopping slaughtering then would hurt them? Hummm.

The only problem now is that it must become law. This is an arduous journey and the Senate hasn’t even said ok to hearing it on it’s floor. And of course, Bush will veto it.

We’ll see what happens, but overall, an amazing development and promising for the future.


For more on the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act see: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/06/american-horse-slaughter-
prevention.htmlamerican-horse-slaughter-prevention.html


Article:

House votes to outlaw horse slaughter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/
ap_on_go_co/horse_slaughter_6

By LIBBY QUAID, AP Food and Farm Writer Thu Sep 7, 6:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The House brushed aside objections from horse doctors and the White House and voted Thursday to outlaw slaughtering horses for people to eat.

Critics of the practice made an emotional appeal, showing photographs of horses with bloodied and lacerated faces, the result of being crammed into trailers destined for slaughterhouses.

Celebrities also turned up the pressure: Actress Bo Derek was on hand for Thursday's vote, and country singer Willie Nelson and oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens have been campaigning against horse slaughter.

The House vote was 263-146. Lawmakers thought they had ended the practice with a vote last year, but instead of banning it outright, Congress yanked the salaries and expenses of federal inspectors. In response, the Bush administration simply started charging plants for inspections, and the slaughter continued.

"It is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on in the U.S. today," said Rep. John Sweeney (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., a sponsor of the ban.

Sweeney argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens because horses, such as Mr. Ed, Secretariat and Silver, are American icons.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record), D-S.C.

Added Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn.: "The way a society treats its animals, particularly horses, speaks to the core values and morals of its citizens."

The bill's future is uncertain. The Senate has not acted on a similar bill, and Congress intends to finish its session by the end of the month.

The administration contends a ban would do more harm than good for horses.

"We have serious concerns that the welfare of these horses would be negatively impacted by a ban on slaughter," Agriculture Secretary
Mike Johanns said in a letter released Thursday.

American horse meat is sold mostly in Europe and Asia; some goes to U.S. zoos.

Defenders of horse slaughter said it offers a cheap and humane way to end a horse's life when the animal no longer is useful. They say many owners cannot afford to care for an unproductive horse.

"These unwanted horses are often sick, unfit or problem animals," said Rep. Collin Peterson (news, bio, voting record), D-Minn. "Many of them are already living in pain or discomfort, and tens of thousands more could be neglected, starved or abandoned if their owners no longer have processing available as an end-of-life option."

Supporters said a U.S. ban would likely send horses to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. Unlike other countries, U.S. law requires that horses and other livestock be unable to feel pain before they are killed.

"These facilities provide a humane alternative to additional suffering or possible dangerous situations," said GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Horses are slaughtered at three foreign-owned plants — two in Texas and one in Illinois. In all, about 88,000 horses, mules and other equines were slaughtered last year, according to the Agriculture Department.

The administration had the backing of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the biggest horse doctors' group. The American Quarter Horse Association also supports the practice.

Opponents had the backing of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association as well as the Humane Society of the United States.

Activists Challenge Legitimacy of Animal Testing and Research: UCLA Called Out For Providing Distorted Image and For Doing Only For Money

A strong case. It comes down to this: if the tests can be proven to be fallacious or flawed in even one instance, then they are not necessary. Hence, as the article describes, the belief that animal testing is only done to continue to attract large sums of grant money. Good for the school, bad for the animal subjects, and, for humans as well. Wasted resources means human health suffers as well.

Article:

UCLA Presents Distorted Image of Animal Testing, Activists Allege

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-animals6sep
06,1,858927.story?coll=la-headlines-california

The university's research is irrelevant and is done to attract grant money, the head of animal rights group Stop Animal Exploitation Now! says.
By Carla Hall, Times Staff Writer
September 6, 2006

Animal rights activists accused UCLA officials Tuesday of painting a distorted picture of animal testing on campus and questioned its relevance.

At a news conference in front of the administration building, Michael Budkie, head of a nonprofit group called Stop Animal Exploitation Now!, said that test animals are "so stressed they are mutilating their own bodies" and that UCLA sponsors research to attract grant money.


Budkie, whose Ohio-based organization provides research for animal rights activists, made public several pages of what he said were handwritten lab observation notes on primate subjects at UCLA. University officials would not confirm the authenticity of any of the documents.

Budkie also handed out what he said was researcher Dario Ringach's 2003 application to UCLA's Animal Research Committee in which the applicant explained why primate testing was necessary. Ringach, a neurobiologist, has been studying the brain and the ways it receives information from the retina.

Budkie, who said he got all of the documents under California's Public Records Act, was followed by half a dozen local protesters chanting "UCLA is an institution of higher torture" and other catchphrases.

Budkie's news conference comes at a time when UCLA officials say their primate researchers are under intensifying harassment from animal rights activists. Ringach, whose work made him a target of radical animal rights activists, last month gave up his primate research, citing concern for the safety of his family.

Budkie said Tuesday that the point of UCLA's animal research is to enrich itself with grant funds. "This not about science. This is not about research. This is about bringing money to the university."

University spokesman Lawrence Lokman would not comment on Budkie's charges, but said, "We are fully behind our research program, and it leads to lifesaving medicines."

Other UCLA officials, who quietly watched the activists speak, passed out a statement noting that animal research at UCLA is "heavily monitored…. All requests to use animals in research, teaching or testing undergo rigorous review by well-informed scientists, veterinarians and members of the general public not affiliated with UCLA."

In the documents provided by Budkie, building locations and names of researchers had all been redacted. But there are detailed descriptions of procedures to be performed on animals — under anesthesia — finally concluding with the animals being "sacrificed at the conclusion of the procedure."

One document laid out in detail how monkeys would be used clinically and monitored for pain. "After induction of anesthesia the animal's head is mounted in a stereotaxic headholder, designed especially for visual experiments. A small craniotomy is made over the brain region of interest and electrodes are attached to the skull."

Eventually the monkey's pupils are dilated and fitted with contact lenses for the research, and eyelids retracted. The monkey is also given a paralytic agent and is continually physiologically monitored. At the end of the experiment, while still anesthetized, the animal is "given an overdose of sodium pentothal in accordance with" American Veterinary Medical Assn. guidelines.

In a Sept. 1 letter he sent to UCLA Acting Chancellor Norman Abrams, Budkie asked for a meeting to talk about animal research. Abrams said in an interview Tuesday that he received the letter Friday and was still studying it.

UCLA senior Kristy Anderson, the president of the school-sanctioned University Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said Tuesday that Roberto Peccei, vice chancellor for research, has agreed to meet with her about her group's concerns.

Group Continues Fight to Expose and Change Horrible Cruelty of Live Animal Export from Australia to Middle East

In the recent past I wrote about the absolutely disgusting practice of livestock import from Australia to the Middle East. That included actual footage of the just horrible treatment that occurs to sheep. You absolutely won’t believe what you’ll read about and see. You can see it here at:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/
unbelievable-video-exposes_08.html

Article:

PETA takes live export fight to Middle East

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/
2006/s1737945.htm

Monday, 11/09/2006

The animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is targetting Middle Eastern consumers in its latest campaign against Australia's live export trade.

The US-based group is paying for newspaper advertisements in Jordan, Kuwait and member nations of the United Arab Emirates, highlighting conditions on board ships used to transport sheep to the region.

PETA spokeswoman Maya Linden says the group wants to pressure the Australian Government to stop the trade, and hopes to influence lamb consumers in the Middle East as well.

"More and more Muslims are telling us that these things that are happening to the sheep are not only horribly cruel, but they also violate Islamic principles and are not Halal," she said.

Meat and Livestock Australia says it has employed a public relations firm in Dubai to fight the campaign, but at this stage, there has been no impact on livestock sales to the Middle East.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

EU Leaders Issue Declaration Demanding the European Union to Ban the Import of Seal Products to Protest Canada's Baby Seal Slaughter

What more can I say then this is an amazing move to put an end to one of the most despicable practices on the Earth. Remember, they pulverize the heads of baby seals with picks.

For more on the Canadian baby seal slaughter see:
http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/
protect_seals/facts_about_the_canadian_seal_hunt.html

Article:

EU leaders seek Canadian seal goods ban

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/
15456030.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Associated Press

STRASBOURG, France - European Parliament members issued a declaration Wednesday demanding the European Union ban the import of seal products to protest Canada's seal hunt.

A written declaration signed by 368 lawmakers aims to shut the European market to seal hides and fur from Canada, officials said.

"Commercial seal hunting is a brutal and cruel practice, targeting seal pups only a few weeks old," said a statement issued by Swedish Green Party member Carl Schlyter and British Green Party member Caroline Lucas.

The declaration, which was not officially endorsed by the EU assembly, called on the EU's European Commission to draft a ban "without delay," the two lawmakers said.

The annual seal cull in Canada's Arctic and Atlantic regions has drawn widespread criticism across Europe and from animal rights activists.

Canada's biggest market for seal pelts is Norway, which is not an EU member.

Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands have, or are currently working on, national bans on seal products.

Canadian officials have defended the hunt saying it is vital to the survival of aboriginal peoples in the Arctic and provides an economic lifeline for a region desperate for jobs and growth.

Lucas and Schlyter said the ban should exempt the traditional Inuit hunt and focus only on commercial hunters.

"Ending the EU market for seal products will reduce demand for seal fur and be an important step toward ending this barbaric cull," they said.

A Real Look at Life for Workers in Slaughterhouses

Eric Schlosser is now a pretty famous author. He’s very good at getting down to the nitty gritty of life in various industries. This quick article paints a good picture of the realities of life for workers in slaughterhouses.

Article:

A Jungle For Meatpackers

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/41076/


By Eric Schlosser, The Nation. Posted September 5, 2006.

Today meatpacking workers have one of the lowest-paid manufacturing jobs in the United States--and one of the most dangerous.

This year marks the hundredth anniversary of Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle. Its depiction of unchecked greed and exploitation in the American meatpacking industry unfortunately remains relevant.

A few months ago the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a December 2000 ruling by an administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The case involved the behavior of the Smithfield Packing Company between 1992 and 1998 at its plant in Tar Heel, North Carolina--the largest hog slaughterhouse in the world. According to the appeals court, Smithfield had violated a wide variety of labor laws and created "an atmosphere of intimidation and coercion" in order to prevent workers at the plant from joining the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union.

Here are some of the details: Smithfield threatened to close the plant if workers voted to join the UFCW. It harassed workers who supported the union and paid other workers to spy on them. It forced union supporters to distribute anti-union literature. It fired workers for backing the union. It asked workers to lie during their testimony to the NLRB and refused to hand over company videotapes that the government had subpoenaed. During a union election in 1997, two UFCW supporters were beaten and arrested by security officers and deputy sheriffs. The chief of security at the slaughterhouse--who also served as a local deputy sheriff--carried handcuffs and a gun on the job. Between 2000 and 2005 he ran a company police force, operating in the plant and staffed with other deputy sheriffs, that arrested almost a hundred workers, including UFCW supporters.

One of the most remarkable things about Smithfield's behavior is that it was criticized by a branch of the federal government. Since George W. Bush took office in January 2001, the meatpacking industry has wielded more power than at any other time since the early twentieth century. The Bush Administration has worked closely with the industry to weaken food safety and worker safety rules and to make union organizing more difficult. The US Department of Agriculture now offers a textbook example of a regulatory agency controlled by the industry it's supposed to regulate.

The current chief of staff at the USDA was, until 2001, the chief lobbyist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Meanwhile, the sort of abuses criticized in the NLRB's Smithfield decision are still being committed. A recent Human Rights Watch report on the US meatpacking industry found "systematic human rights violations." Lance Compa, the author of the report, teaches labor law at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Compa interviewed many workers at the Smithfield plant in Tar Heel. What's happening there, he says, is "a modern-day version of The Jungle."

While visiting Chicago slaughterhouses for research in 1904, Upton Sinclair met Eastern European immigrants employed at dangerous, dirty, low-wage jobs. Union organizers and injured workers were being harassed and fired. The publication of The Jungle two years later caused a public uproar--about the widespread contamination of meat, not the mistreatment of meatpacking workers. The book helped President Theodore Roosevelt gain passage of two important pieces of legislation, the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act.

But it didn't accomplish much for meatpacking workers. Conditions gradually improved in the nation's slaughterhouses, thanks to years of labor organizing. The industry fought hard against unions, pitting one Eastern European immigrant group against another and recruiting African-Americans as strikebreakers. By the 1930s, however, most of the industry was unionized. And by the 1950s meatpacking workers had one of the highest-paid manufacturing jobs in the United States. It wasn't always a pleasant job, but it provided a solid, middle-class income.

In 1970 the typical American meatpacking worker earned about 20 percent more than the typical factory worker. Today he or she earns about 20 percent less. Enormous changes have swept through the industry over the past thirty years, as big companies swallowed up small ones, moved slaughterhouses from urban areas (where unions were strong) to rural areas (where unions were weak), imported poor immigrants from Mexico and ruthlessly cut wages by as much as 50 percent. Today meatpacking workers have one of the lowest-paid manufacturing jobs in the United States--and one of the most dangerous. At a modern slaughterhouse hundreds of people work at a furious pace, close to one another, wielding sharp knives. The most common injury is a laceration, as workers stab themselves or a worker nearby.

When my book "Fast Food Nation" was published in 2001, the meatpacking industry had the nation's highest rate of serious injury. It was about three times higher than the national average for factories, despite widespread underreporting of slaughterhouse injuries. The rate of cumulative trauma injury in meatpacking was about thirty-three times higher than the national average. Today it's impossible to know how many meatpacking workers are really getting hurt.

In 2002 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration changed the form that companies must use to record meatpacking injuries--and thereby reduced the injury rate by 50 percent. "Recordable safety incident rate in plants cut in half since 1996," the American Meat Institute announced in a press release, giving the industry credit for the miraculous decline, picking 1996 as a year of comparison to mislead journalists and never mentioning that the 50 percent drop was due entirely to the government's bookkeeping change.

Tar Heel is located in one of the poorest regions of North Carolina, with a faltering rural economy and sharp racial divisions among the local whites, African-Americans and Native Americans. The Smithfield plant, which opened in 1992, only added to the racial tension. Charlie LeDuff, a New York Times reporter who worked undercover at the plant in 2000, described a brutal, segregated workplace where whites were employed as supervisors, blacks did the heavy lifting on the kill floor and Mexican immigrants were given the worst jobs. Inmates on work-release, wearing green prison uniforms, were placed with the Mexicans.

In one sense the company was an equal-opportunity employer, LeDuff noted: "The Smithfield plant will take just about any man or woman with a pulse and a sparkling urine sample, with few questions asked." Testifying before a US Senate committee a couple of years later, Sherri Bufkin, a former supervisor at the slaughterhouse, explained some of Smithfield's racial policies. "Management hired a special outside consultant from California to run the anti-union campaign in Spanish for the Latinos, who were seen as easy targets of manipulation because they could be threatened with immigration issues," Bufkin said. "The word was that black workers were going to be replaced with Latino workers because blacks were more favorable to unions."

The NLRB decision strongly condemned Smithfield's actions during union elections in 1994 and 1997, both of which ended with the UFCW's defeat. The fact that it took so many years for the federal government to act suggests that the nation's labor laws have become largely meaningless. Smithfield was neither fined nor indicted for breaking the law. None of its executives were punished. The company was merely ordered to post the NLRB decision at the Tar Heel plant, rehire several workers who were illegally fired and hold another union election.

"Smithfield looks forward to an election by secret ballot," Joseph Luter IV, the president of Smithfield Packing Company, wrote in an editorial in June. Although Smithfield has decided to accept the NLRB's findings, the company still denies that any of them are true. Gene Bruskin, director of the UFCW's Smithfield campaign, thinks it's impossible to hold a free or fair election at the Smithfield plant. Bruskin hopes that growing pressure from civil rights leaders, religious groups and immigrant-rights groups will convince Smithfield executives to sit down with the union and discuss how workers can join the UFCW without being threatened or harassed. On August 30 UFCW supporters from around the country plan to demand justice for Smithfield workers at the company's annual shareholder meeting in Richmond, Virginia.

Meanwhile, the industry continues to peddle its version of reality. In June the American Meat Institute held a luncheon for journalists in Washington, DC, to celebrate Upton Sinclair and the passage of the 1906 Meat Inspection Act. French champagne was served, glasses were raised in honor of the centennial and a commemorative booklet was handed out. It outlines the industry's labor, environmental and food safety policies, with the title: "If Upton Sinclair were alive today... He'd be Amazed by the U.S. Meat Industry."

That much is true. He would be amazed--by how little has fundamentally changed, how brazenly a new set of immigrants is being exploited in a familiar way, how old lies are being repeated. But you'd never catch him at that luncheon, sponsored by an industry that tried so hard to destroy him. If Upton Sinclair were alive today, you would find him in Tar Heel, North Carolina, fighting for the union and angry as hell.

Eric Schlosser is the author of 'Fast Food Nation' and 'Reefer Madness.'

Activists Challenge FBI: Increase Reward for Arrest of a Researcher for Animal Abuse

An interesting situation. Please read on. By the way, it’s stated in the article by the moneyed interests that animal rights is the leading terrorist threat the US. This actually goes against the facts and brings to light the hypocrisy of the government and the FBI in targeting peaceful protestors and ignoring groups such as militias and anti abortionists that actually kill people. What it comes down to then is a move of resources from where they’re really needed into politically motivated efforts to benefit wealthy donors and political and moneyed insiders. Read more about this situation here:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/05/
article-points-out-mislead-obsession.html


Article:

Animal-rights groups up the ante

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/health/
article_1198382.php/Animal-rights_groups_
up_the_ante

By Steve Mitchell
Sep 6, 2006, 19:00 GMT

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Animal-rights activists have upped their reward for arrest of a researcher for animal abuse in response to the FBI`s offer for information leading to the arrest of extremists who left an incendiary device at the home of a UCLA scientist.

The North American Animal Liberation Press Office said an un-named but well-known male celebrity contributed $50,000 to UCLA Primate Freedom`s long-standing award of $10,000 for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of a UCLA researcher who conducts experiments involving animals.

The move comes after the UCLA and the FBI together offered $60,000 for information leading to the arrest of individuals who left a 'Molotov cocktail' at the home of UCLA researcher Lynn Fairbanks.

Anonymous activists from the Animal Liberation Front have claimed responsibility for leaving the incendiary device at Fairbanks` home. Fairbanks, who works with primates, has long been a target of UCLA Primate Freedom and other animal-rights groups.

Another UCLA researcher, Dario Ringach, recently bowed to the pressure from activists and said that he would stop conducting experiments that involve primates.

Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, told United Press International the reward money came from a male celebrity who is a major star of action films.

'Nobody really expects to see the reward paid out,' Vlasak said, contending that 'there`s almost no enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.'

Bill Carter, spokesman for the FBI, told UPI animal-rights extremists together with eco-terrorists are responsible for the greatest number of domestic terrorist activities. The FBI lumps the animal-rights groups in with the eco-terrorists because 'we consider it more of a movement,' Carter said.

Jacquie Calnan, president of Americans for Medical Progress, a group in Alexandria, Va., that is supported by the pharmaceutical industry, told UPI she thought the announcement of the reward offer from the animal groups was just a publicity stunt.

'It`s all public relations hype,' Calnan said. 'To claim an unnamed celebrity contributed money is a PR tactic to gain attention.'

She said the groups have had an inconsequential effect on research, but they could end up injuring or killing a researcher.

'We`re on borrowed time before there is a serious incident that results in serious injury or harm,' Calnan said. 'Our concern is ensuring that scientists, employees and their families are safe. As far as an impact on research, they`ve been negligible.'

The FBI has contended that the device intended for Fairbanks home was actually left at the house of a neighbor, but Vlasak disputed that assertion, saying he was near Fairbanks` home a few days afterwards and he observed police tape around the house as if it was a crime scene.

Vlasak said the FBI may be using the tactic to provoke the activists responsible to speak out and possibly reveal identifying information about themselves.

'They`re (the FBI) trying to get someone to step forward and say, `Hey, we didn`t do what you said we did,`' Vlasak said. 'The fact that (the neighbor where the device was left) is a 70-year-old lady, they`re creating this sympathetic victim ... the whole thing smells funny to me.'

The FBI`s Los Angeles office, which is handling the UCLA investigation, did not respond to UPI`s request for comment by press time.

Pam Ferdin, Vlasak`s wife and an animal-rights activist in her own right, told UPI she thought the additional reward might induce researchers working in the UCLA labs to provide information about animal abuse being carried out by their colleagues.

'I just think maybe the reward will help these inside sources provide information,' Ferdin said, noting that becoming a whistleblower makes them vulnerable to repercussions from UCLA or law enforcement officials.

Ferdin said she`s noticed student protestors on campus have become more muted and inhibited due to a perception law enforcement and university officials are intensifying their efforts to crack down on animal-rights activists.

'It really shows where our culture is and what`s become of our freedoms because now people are afraid to even set up protest tables at UCLA,' she said.

UCLA Acting Chancellor Norman Abrams said last week the university is strengthening security measures and considering legal remedies against animal-rights activists as well as helping craft legislation allowing for more severe criminal penalties.

'We will not be deterred by the actions of a few fanatic and misguided extremists,' Abrams said in a statement. 'The kinds of activities engaged in by some animal research opponents have crossed the line of legitimate demonstrations and, in a number of instances, have involved patently criminal behavior.'

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Cruel Madonna: Imports 1,000 Baby Pheasants from France to Her Estate in Britain for Her Wealthy Friend to Shoot

Not surprising. She does this every year.

Article:

Madonna Imports 1,000 Pheasants Just To Shoot Them

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news?id=21859

Now that's not very nice...

By: Lowri Williams on 9/5/2006


Madonna has been severely criticized by animal welfare organizations for importing 1,000 baby pheasants from France just so she can shoot their brains out.

Madge imported the birds to her 1,200 acre Ashcombe House estate on the Wiltshire/Dorset border that is already home to 31,000 pheasants that were originally from Wales.

Although Madge and her director hubby Guy Ritchie have quit shooting birds on their estate it is still regarded as one of the best sites for shooting in the UK and they regularly allow their celebrity friends to kill there.

Animal Rights campaigners have slammed Madonna for her actions Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid said: “Shame on Madonna. She thinks that when she puts on her plus fours she is part of the landed gentry,"

“But this is not in harmony with nature. It is the production of factory birds to provide a live shooting gallery.”

A spokeswoman for Madonna said: “Both Madonna and Guy have stopped shooting,"

"We can confirm that the estate got 1,000 birds from France as an experiment this year but we won’t be doing it again.”

She still has blood on her hands…

Group Asks El Paso City Council to Close the Elephant Exhibit at the El Paso Zoo Following Allegation of Elephant Abuse

Article:

Animal Rights Group Asks Council To Close Elephant Exhibit

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/9773202/detail.html


POSTED: 8:07 pm MDT August 31, 2006

August 31. 2006 -- BY: Elizabeth O'Hara/KFOX News Anchor

A nationally known animal rights group called on El Paso City Council Thursday to close the elephant exhibit at the El Paso Zoo following an allegation of abuse that KFOX was first to report.

KFOX obtained a copy of the letter "In Defense of Animals," also known as IDA, sent to Mayor John Cook as well as to City Council. It follows a report by KFOX that a zoo employee, Allan Seidon, is on administrative leave following an allegation he struck Juno the elephant sometime in the last month. The abuse allegation is the second for the zoo in less than seven years, and an anonymous source at City Hall said Seidon was involved in both incidents.

In its letter, the group argued that, "this disturbing event goes beyond one individual's actions and falls squarely on the City of El Paso for allowing the abuse to occur."

Zoo officials are not commenting on the latest abuse allegation.

IDA's letter also reminded council of its decision last year to expand the elephant enclosure, rather than send the animals to a sanctuary in Tennessee. To date, Juno and Savannah's exhibit has not been expanded.

It said, "considering the city's fiscal standing, which has been further strained by widespread weather-related damage to the city, it is obvious the City of El Paso is unable to commit the resources needed to provide the highest quality of life for Juno and Savannah."

While the group works to have the animals removed, city representative Alejandro Lozano said due process necessitates that council wait to see the results of a city investigation into what happened to Juno.

"I would see the results of what the city is going to do, the department is going to do, the director is going to do. I'll take it from there; it all depends on how they handle it," Lozano said.

Liz Kern, a spokeswoman for the El Paso Zoo, said the zoo is working on plans to expand the current elephant area into the neighboring tapir exhibit as discussed by City Council.

Kern said the added space would increase the elephant area from less than an acre to about 1.1 acres, at a cost of more than $2 million.

Beyonce Questioned for Abuse of Baby Alligator on the Set of a Photo Shoot

Another Diva who has little concern for any other species. If it’s not fur, it’s abusing baby alligators on the set of a photo shoot.


Article:

Animal Rights Activists Aren't Happy With Beyonce About Alligator Incident

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004710886

August 31, 2006 8:56 a.m. EST

Maira Oliveira - All Headline News Reporter

Los Angeles, CA (BANG) - Beyonce Knowles should have kept her own mouth shut. The sultry singer has been confronted by animal rights activists for abusing a baby alligator while shooting the cover for her new album.

The singer recently revealed she made animal handlers tape the reptile's mouth shut before she would hold it for the artwork of her "B'Day" album.

"There was a shot where I held a baby alligator. It had its mouth taped-that was my bright idea. He was really cute, but since his mouth was taped, he didn't have any way to defend himself. He was upset so he peed on me," said Beyonce.

After learning of her actions, international animal rights group PETA contacted British reptile expert Clifford Warwick.

Warwick has now written a letter to Beyonce, on PETA's behalf, branding her actions "abusive."

"Humans and alligators are not natural bedfellows, and the two should not mix at events such as photo shoots. In my view, doing so is arguably abusive to an animal," he said.

"Animals shouldn't be held in their predators' arms for protracted periods of time while being stripped of all defenses."

This is not Beyonce first run-in with PETA. In June, members of the group won a charity auction on the internet site eBay to dine with the singer-turned-actress at the trendy restaurant Nobu. When they arrived they fired questions at Beyonce, demanding she explain her use of fur in her clothing line, House of Dereon.

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Jackie Chan Calls Out China on its Heartless Nature: Encourages People to Start Having Respect and Compassion for Dogs

This comes on the heals of China’s massive, unnecessary and brutal dog kill. You can read more about this unbelievable action at:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/08/
more-on-chinese-killing-of-54429-dogs.html

Chan created a card that features the Chinese characters for "love" and "respect" along with the actor’s signature.

Along with that is the inscription: "Of course it is our duty as human beings to love and respect each other. But that obligation extends to our animal friends as well. They are just as deserving of our care and kindness."

I give much respect to Chan for taking this position and challenging his heartless homeland.

Article:

Action star Jackie Chan urges China to 'have a heart for dogs'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060831/

en_afp/healthchinadogsanimals_060831135006

Thu Aug 31, 9:50 AM ET

BEIJING (AFP) - Hong Kong action star
Jackie Chan has urged China to "have a heart for dogs" after thousands of the animals were killed to fight rabies outbreaks, the animal rights group PETA said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Chan has teamed up with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the world's largest animal rights organization, to stop the mass culling of dogs to fight a disease that can easily be prevented with vaccinations.

The kung fu movie hero has created a unique greeting card that will be auctioned off on eBay starting Thursday to benefit PETA Asia-Pacific's humane rabies control campaign, the group said in a press release.

Shaped like a heart, the handmade card features the Chinese characters for "love" and "respect" along with the actors signature.

It also carries the inscription: "Of course it is our duty as human beings to love and respect each other. But that obligation extends to our animal friends as well. They are just as deserving of our care and kindness."

Chan is an icon of popular culture, not only in Hong Kong but in China.

"With Jackies help, we hope to make dog culling a thing of the past," says PETA Asia-Pacific Director Jason Baker. "Humane rabies prevention programs not only save dogs lives, they also save human lives."

Meanwhile PETA representatives have met with Chinese government officials in the wake of the mass slaughter and provided them with posters and guidelines for humane methods of rabies control.

With an increase in the number of people raising dogs, rabies has emerged in recent weeks as a top public health priority, as more people have contracted rabies from dog bites.

Although people are supposed to vaccinate their dogs and register them, many families, especially in the countryside, violate the regulations partly because they do not want to pay vaccination or registration costs.

News of plans by authorities in the eastern province of Shandong to kill up to half a million dogs, following the death of 16 people from rabies in the past eight months, made headlines worldwide.

One county in southwest Yunnan province earlier in August ordered more than 50,000 dogs killed after rabies led to the deaths of three people.

Contracted Companies Continue Massive Seal Clubbing In Namibia: Brutality for Profit

Amazing this is still going on and at such a massive level. Must be trying to catch up to the kings of seal slaughter – Canada. Of course, they use the same methods – brutal hacking at the head with a pick. Of course, no babies or young are left alone.

Article:

Animal rights group urges end to massive seal cull in Namibia

http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1196252.php
/Animal_rights_group_urges_end_to_massive_seal_cull_in_Namibia

By DPA
Aug 30, 2006, 19:00 GMT

Windhoek/Johannesburg - Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) Wednesday protested the culling of an estimated 91,000 seals in Namibia.

The culling of baby and adult harp seals - the animals are clubbed or shot - began some weeks ago at Cape Cross.

The cull at Cape Cross on the country's southern Atlantic coast, carried out by companies contracted to the government, is undertaken each year.

'The Namibian government has come up with every excuse imaginable for this barbaric slaughter except for the real motive behind it - profit,' Peta said in a statement.

In a letter addressed to the southern African nation's Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Abraham Iyambo, the lobby group said there was 'good reason why the annual Namibia seal slaughter is considered the cruelest seal hunt on the plant' and urged, on behalf of 'concerned citizens around the world' for an end to the practice.

Peta also rejected the Namibian government's position that the culling is key to keeping seal numbers low and ultimately protecting fish stocks.

Canadian Government Decides Against Introducing a Bill from Last Parliament That Would Have Modernized 19th Century Definitions of Animal Cruelty

Wow, to not even go ahead with a common sense bill against cruelty makes you wonder why. Do they actually like cruelty?

Article:

Animal cruelty bill lacks teeth, say rights groups

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.
html?id=58c89141-0a7d-4f73-8589-721c21d8f89e&k
=92219&p=1

Joel Kom
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

OTTAWA - The Conservative government has decided against re-introducing a Liberal bill from the last Parliament that would have modernized 19th century definitions of animal cruelty a decision that has angered animal-rights groups who lobbied to pass the bill for the past seven years.

The government will instead support a Liberal senator's bill, known as S-213, that focuses mostly on increasing fines and jail terms for animal cruelty offences, a spokesman for Justice Minister Vic Toews said Tuesday.

The Conservatives won't re-introduce the last Parliament's legislation, which itself was the fourth version of an animal-cruelty bill dating back to 1999, because it wasn't part of the party's platform, Mike Storeshaw said.

''S-213 is an approach we'd support,'' he said. ''We think the (penalties) that exist are too low and S-213 is a good way of handling it.''

The Senate bill, introduced in April by Liberal Senator John Bryden, would raise the maximum jail term to five years for indictable offences, higher than the current two-year maximum. The bill would also raise the maximum fine from the current $2,000 to $10,000 and allow judges to impose a lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone convicted of animal cruelty.

Those penalties were all included in the last Parliament's legislation, which died last year after the election was called.

But the big difference, animal-rights groups said, was the parliamentary bill modernized definitions of animal cruelty that hadn't been updated since the first such law was passed in 1892. While some minor changes were made in the 1950s, they said, the Senate bill lets most of the 19th-century rules live on. For example, crimes against animals are considered property offences.

''The most unfortunate development around the whole debate ... is the introduction of Senator Bryden's bill,'' said Shelagh MacDonald, program director for the Ottawa-based Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, adding she was "enormously disappointed" with the Conservative plan.

MacDonald said the Senate bill fails to lower the high threshold that demands prosecutors prove someone intended to neglect animals, something the parliamentary bill would have done. The threshold came into play, MacDonald said, when a judge acquitted a Saskatchewan farmer charged with starving more than 30 sheep to death because the judge didn't feel the farmer intended to starve the animals.

The Senate bill would also not extend the law's protection to wild or unowned animals.

''If you can't convict to begin with, what difference does it make if the penalties are larger or smaller?'' said Cele Partap, a spokeswoman for the Toronto-based World Society for the Protection of Animals Canada.

Some had criticized the last parliamentary legislation for its potential to spark lawsuits from overzealous animal-rights groups who, they said, would go as far as making hunting and fishing illegal. Partap called that a ''radical statement,'' saying anything already lawfully regulated such as hunting and fishing would have been unaffected by the parliamentary bill.

That bill had, in various incarnations, been kicking around Parliament since 1999, yet it was never passed either because of an election call or because the parliamentary session ended. Storeshaw said he couldn't comment on animal-rights groups' specific concerns, only to say the government supported the Senate bill.

Brian Murphy, the Liberals' associate justice critic, said he was ''relatively receptive'' to the Conservatives' plans to back the Senate bill despite his preference to re-introduce the old legislation. But, he added, MPs would have the chance to make amendments to the Senate bill before it would become law, something his party would ''absolutely'' look at.

Ottawa Citizen

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Greed and Vanity Still Strong: Fur Makes Big Come Back: China and Rich Drive This Bloody Industry

Not good news. Seems that most don’t heed the reality of the cruelty of fur and are now flocking back to it.

Of course, cruel China - leads the way. And this is in addition to their continued torture and slaughter of dogs and cats for fur and food. See
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/
crash-course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html

Also at fault is the American Legend auction, the largest remaining fur market in the United States. More on this can be found in the article below.

For more on the reality of fur and for pictures and video of what actually occurs to make a fur coat visit:

http://www.furkills.org/

http://www.furisdead.com/


Here are a few paragraphs from the article below:

American Legend auction, the largest remaining fur market in the United States, where $100 million in business is transacted in a few days.

After a few rough decades, fur is back. Spurred by a boom in demand from China and recent popularity at home thanks to glossy marketing, the price of American mink pelts jumped 33 percent just last year.

Denmark rules the fur industry, selling 80 percent more mink than the U.S. Garment manufacturing is ruled by Asia, rather than New York. Expanding markets in China, Korea and Russia are helping drive demand.

To resuscitate the business, American Legend, a cooperative of 220 North American mink ranchers, undertook advertising campaigns, hiring supermodels Cindy Crawford, Gisele Bundchen and MacPherson. They capitalized on exploding Westernization and wealth in Asia brought by a rejuvenating economy.


Article:

After soft decades, fur popularity soars

A boom in China and high-profile marketing in America are causing prices to rebound.

http://www.readingeagle.com/index.asp


The Seattle Times

SEATTLE In a drab conference room in a nondescript Renton, Wash., warehouse during the spring, an auctioneer took a podium beneath huge photos of supermodels in mink coats and fur lingerie.

Before him, dozens of men and women buzzed in a babel of foreign languages Russian and Italian, Chinese and Korean. But their common language was hanging on racks in the room next door: some 1.7 million shimmering pelts of farm-raised mink, and hundreds of thousands of wild beaver, raccoon, weasel and fox.

This is the American Legend auction, the largest remaining fur market in the United States, where $100 million in business is transacted in a few days.

After a few rough decades, fur is back. Spurred by a boom in demand from China and recent popularity at home thanks to glossy marketing, the price of American mink pelts jumped 33 percent just last year.

Yet a trade that helped put Seattle on the map today takes place largely out of view, in a heavily guarded, fenced-in warehouse protected from anti-fur protesters. And there's an entirely new unease: Two years ago, a handful of buyers from New York, Canada and China hatched a scheme to rig bids and buy hundreds of otter pelts on the cheap, according to federal prosecutors.

That led to a long-running Justice Department antitrust investigation that still may be in the works. Federal prosecutors remain mum. But class-action lawyers are circling.

And once again the fur trade faces the prospect of being drawn into an uncomfortable spotlight.

Nowadays, Denmark rules the fur industry, selling 80 percent more mink than the U.S. Garment manufacturing is ruled by Asia, rather than New York. Expanding markets in China, Korea and Russia are helping drive demand.

It wasn't always so.

Fur was becoming controversial as early as the 1960s, and by the 1980s and early 1990s it was the target of sabotage by animal-rights activists, who vandalized stores. In 1991, activists burned a small Edmonds, Wash., factory that made feed for farmed mink. All over the country, mink were sprung from their cages, and farms were raided, even torched.

In addition, there were economic troubles in Asia and a glut of furs. Prices crashed.

To resuscitate the business, American Legend, a cooperative of 220 North American mink ranchers, undertook advertising campaigns, hiring supermodels Cindy Crawford, Gisele Bundchen and MacPherson. They capitalized on exploding Westernization and wealth in Asia brought by a rejuvenating economy.

“Beginning in 1999, we tried to refocus the industry and consumers that (fur) could be an integral part of fashion,” said Steve Casotti, vice president of American Legend.

While protesters continue to commit acts of eco-sabotage, and to portray the fur industry as cruel, inhumane and unnecessary in the modern world, celebrities such as rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs and pop singer and actress Jennifer Lopez are seen and photographed in mink coats. In places such as Korea, China, Russia and Turkey, the rich are driving expensive cars, wearing Rolexes and buying fur, said Alvin Glickman, a fur buyer in New York.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Activists Ask Israel's Teva Pharmaceuticals to Sever Ties with British Firm Huntingdon Life Sciences Over Its Use and Abuse of Laboratory Animals

Ah yes, Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), the most cruel company on Earth. Here are just a few things that they are guilty of:

In a show called "It's a dog's life (see below for link to it)" it shows HLS workers punching beagle puppies in the face, shaking them violently and throwing them against walls.

Four subsequent investigations uncovered horrors in the way regular HLS staffers treated the animals, including deliberate cruelty, torture and bestiality.

Animals were also operated on without anesthetic.

In addition, test results were falsified in order to expedite products' time to market of products.

To learn more about the horror and abuse of Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) including seeing the actual footage shoot inside see http://www.shac.net/MISC/Inside_HLS.html


Article:

Animal rights struggle reaches Teva

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/754730.html

By Nimrod Halpern

The international battle against British firm Huntingdon Life Sciences over its use of laboratory animals has reached Israel's Teva Pharmaceuticals: Members of SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) demonstrated yesterday outside Teva offices in Israel, Belgium and Britain, demanding that Teva sever its relations with HLS, which kills about 500 test subjects each day, or 180,000 annually.

"We demand that Teva immediately sever its relations with HLS and adopt more efficient, safe scientific methods to test materials, which do not involve causing pointless pain and death to animals," said the Israeli branch of SHAC. HLS victims include dogs, cats, monkeys and rabbits.

Huntingdon Life Sciences is the biggest contract testing firm in Europe, according to SHAC.

The movement's goal is to shut down HLS by putting economic pressure on organizations and companies that do business with the animal-testing firm, including banks, investors, clients and suppliers.

So far, over 100 clients have cut their ties with HLS, and its shares have lost most of their value.

The company's owners were forced to infuse money of their own and also to move the company's headquarters from Britain to the United States.

The company's attempt to switch from the London Stock Exchange to the New York Stock Exchange was also disastrous. In a dramatic move, NYSE announced on September 7, 2005, the day HLS shares were to have started trading, that it was suspending trade in the stock, with no set date for resumption. This was the first time in history that NYSE halted trade in a firm's shares based on a public battle against the company. Although NYSE did not explain its move at the time, it is known that animal rights activists were preparing to target the exchange as well.

SHAC was founded in 1999, two years after Britain's Channel 4 television aired deeply disturbing footage in a show called "It's a dog's life." The films, shot in secret, showed HLS workers punching beagle puppies in the face, shaking them violently and throwing them against walls.

Four subsequent investigations uncovered horrors in the way regular HLS staffers treated the animals, including deliberate cruelty, torture and bestiality. Animals were also operated on without anesthetic. In addition, test results were falsified in order to expedite products' time to market of products. Several HLS workers were convicted after these findings, and HLS was slammed with heavy fines.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Pittsburgh Woman Sentenced to Three Months in Jail and Fined For Leaving Her Cat in a Hot Car

Though I still see this as a light sentence in relation to the stupidity and cruelty, it still sends a good message. Starting to take animal cruelty serious is being seen more and more. I commend the judge for not doing the usual probation, etc.

For more on what to do if you see an animal caught in a hot car see: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/05/
if-you-see-animal-confined-to-vehicle.html

Article:

Woman sent to jail, left cat in hot car

http://www.timesonline.com/site/news.cfm?
newsid=17109680&BRD=2305&PAG=461&
dept_id=478569&rfi=6

By: AP
08/25/2006

Tia the cat is being cared for at Animal Friends in Ohio Township. AP

Pittsburgh - A woman was sentenced to three months in jail and fined for leaving her cat in a hot car, seriously harming the animal.

Cherie Phipps had been convicted in a similar case last year when a dog died of heat stroke in her overheated car in Mount Oliver, authorities said.

She was sentenced by district judge Wednesday in the cat case, although Phipps failed to show for the hearing, leading authorities to issue a warrant for her arrest.

The district judge also fined her $750, and prohibited from owning any animals for 90 days.

A passer-by contacted authorities on July 14 to report that the cat was in distress in the hot car in Pittsburgh. The cat will soon be healthy enough for adoption, Animal Friends humane officer Katie Waters said.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Like Giving a Junky Free Drugs: Leasing Elephants and Other Wildlife to China

What a ridiculous plan. Anyone who knows about Chinas treatment of animals knows that this will be a devastating act. China is by far the cruelest country on Earth. Need proof? Just read these posts:

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/

crash-course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/08/
cruel-china-plans-another-large-dog.html

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/08/
even-on-heels-of-beyond-disgusting-dog.html

http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/05/
in-order-to-get-back-at-dalai-lama-and.html

The point is that China cannot be trusted with any species. To “lease” life to them is just plain stupid – like giving a junky free drugs.

Article:

Animal rights activists oppose Thai elephant lease to China

http://etna.mcot.net/query.php?nid=24276

BANGKOK, Aug 23 (TNA) - Animal rights activists in Asia have joined together to protest Thailand's plan to lend elephants and other wildlife to China, alleging that the animal exchange could place bio-diversity and the country's declining population of elephants at risk, a leading Thai activist said on Tuesday.

Soraida Salwala, secretary-general of Friends of the Asian Elephant Foundation, said more than 40 animal rights organisations from 10 Asian nations have jointly issued a statement protesting the Chiang Mai Night Safari's plan to exchange five Thai elephants, some chimpanzees, douc langur monkeys, and crocodiles for some white tigers from China.

She said Thai animals rights activist groups will meet Wednesday to plan a coordinated action to preventing the authorities from exporting the wildlife.

''We would not let it happen again...as when they successfully sent eight Thai elephants to Australia,'' she said.

Soraida said she believed the five elephants have already been moved to a shelter near Bangkok in preparation for their trip to China.

Despite the accusation from animal rights groups, Wattana Wittayaprasit, head of Cites Management Authority of Thailand, said the department has not yet given a green light to Chiang Mai Night Safari
as alleged.

He said the proposal arrived at his department two months ago and is under legal practice review and other considerations.

Meanwhile, government officials met Tuesday to discuss legal amendments to prevent elephant identity theft.

Schwann Tunhikorn, deputy director-general of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, said he would propose a cabinet resolution to allow baby elephants to be registered at 30
days of age and to have a microchip implated under their skin, a practice usually done when the beasts are eight years old.

Mr. Schwann said the cabinet resolution would be a shortcut to amending a law regarding the use of animals as transport which has been in place for 67 years.

''Any changes to the law would need years to accomplish,'' he said.

Entering baby elephants into official records and giving them microchips containing individual demographic information at early age is believed by some experts to help prevent animal smuggling.

It would also help Thailand keep track of the country's population of elephants, he said.

Group Seeks to Build One-of-a-Kind Museum Protesting Research on Primates at University of Wisconsin - Madison and In General

This property sits in between the National Primate Research Center and the Harry Harlow Primate Psychology Laboratory and so would be an amazing statement and educational tool. Yet, of course, there are now attempts to block the purchase, even to the point of breech of contract.

Essentially, this is the idea of Rick Bogle, founder of the Primate Freedom Project. He originally agreed to a contract with the owner last year to purchase the property for $675,000. It would be used to build a museum protesting research on monkeys featuring graphic depiction of the horrors of the work. This would be the first museum of its kind in the country.

The property contains sheds and warehouses and is between the National Primate Research Center and the Harry Harlow Primate Psychology Laboratory.

We’ll see if the courts agree that there was indeed a breech of contract. Too bad the land owner is now on the side of unnecessary cruelty.

Article:

Animal rights activists fight to build museum next to UW labs

http://www.gazetteextra.com/primateprotest082306.asp


By Ryan J. Foley
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. - Plans to build a museum protesting primate research on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus were blocked when a business owner backed out of a contract to sell a key piece of property, an activist testified Wednesday.

But an attorney for the business owner countered that allowing the Primate Freedom Project to build the exhibit between two UW-Madison primate labs would stand in the way of a planned UW expansion and threaten the security of researchers.

"It is not in the public interest that this group acquire ownership of the property," attorney Allen Arntsen said.

The arguments came Wednesday in a lawsuit involving the animal rights' group, the university and Roger Charly, who owns property containing sheds and warehouses sandwiched between the National Primate Research Center and the Harry Harlow Primate Psychology Laboratory.

Rick Bogle, founder of the Primate Freedom Project, testified his group reached a contract with Charly last year to purchase the property for $675,000 to build a museum protesting what he considers immoral research on monkeys. The space, featuring graphic depiction of the alleged horrors of the work, would be the first of its kind in the country.

Bogle alleges Charly backed out of the contract under pressure after a nonprofit connected to the university, concerned about the museum plans, offered to buy the property for $1 million.

Charly has said the deal was not binding and he reconsidered after hearing concerns that activists would use the space to intimidate and possibly attack researchers, a claim they dispute.

Ownership of the property is in limbo until the outcome of Bogle's lawsuit, which seeks to force Charly to follow through with the sale rather than selling the property to UW-Madison. Dane County Judge Sarah O'Brien was not expected to issue a ruling for at least one month.

"We stand ready with the money and we'd like to buy the property ... to display what's going on at primate labs in the United States," Bogle testified.

The dispute is one of many between animal rights activists and UW-Madison, a top research university that houses one of eight federally supported primate labs. Scientists defend the use of monkeys to search for cures to human ailments such as AIDS and Parkinson's disease. Activists contend that monkeys are too similar to human beings for experimentation.

Bogle, a teacher-turned-activist, said he got the idea for the museum when he was sitting in front of the labs protesting in summer 2004. He said he moved to Madison months later to follow through with the purchase after Charly seemed agreeable to the deal.

Charly later signed an agreement selling the land to animal rights activist Richard McClellan, who had agreed to fund the purchase and be paid back later out of private donations, Bogle testified.

The property is remarkable because it is so close to two primate labs - which are usually shielded from the public - and has historical significance because former UW researcher Harry Harlow was a pioneer in the field.

"This is like George Washington's house if you're interested in American history," he said. "There's no piece of property like it in the United States."

Charly's lawyer, Arntsen, said the agreement with McClellan was not binding and the public would be better served with the sale to the university's real estate development arm.

Under cross-examination from Arntsen, Bogle acknowledged he sent threatening e-mails to researchers, had demonstrated at their homes and once said he dreamed of attacking a UW lab with a sledgehammer.

Alan Fish, UW-Madison's associate vice chancellor, testified the university made the $1 million offer for the property as part of a future plan to expand the research labs. He said expanding without the property would add $3 million to $5 million in construction costs to build around the space.

"We would literally be building a doughnut and not owning the hole," Fish said.

Having activists next door would also increase the cost of securing the labs by requiring additional surveillance cameras and more secure doors, windows and walls, Fish said.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Even Though No Law Requires Cosmetic Ingredients and Food Additives Be Tested On Animals, Covance Refuses To Stop Unnecessary, Cruel Tests

The editorial below points out the most important facts in this argument: one, is that these tests are unnecessary. The others are that Covance and others like them are constantly breaking any rules, and are guilty of serious welfare violations.

Covance tests cosmetic ingredients and food additives on primates, dogs and other animals, despite the fact that no law requires that these products be tested on animals. Unlike Covance, most companies have implemented non-animal safety tests for cosmetics, food additives and other non-drug products.

In addition, Covance is guilty of serious animal welfare violations and was recently fined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture based on documented allegations of striking, choking and tormenting primates at its Virginia facility.

Article:

Covance refuses to take path away from animal tests

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/

Aug. 23, 2006 12:00 AM

As a neurologist and public health specialist with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, I'd like to correct misleading statements made by George Poste about the need for animal-testing companies like Covance ("Recognize need for animals in research," Aug. 18).

Covance tests cosmetic ingredients and food additives on primates, dogs and other animals, despite the fact that no law requires that these products be tested on animals. Unlike Covance, most companies have implemented non-animal safety tests for cosmetics, food additives and other non-drug products. In addition, Covance is guilty of serious animal welfare violations and was recently fined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture based on documented allegations of striking, choking and tormenting primates at its Virginia facility.

Contrary to Poste's comments about animal advocacy groups, PCRM has a strict spokesperson policy forbidding comments that could be taken as promoting discrimination or illegal activity. Only one person has ever violated that policy, and as a result, he is no longer a PCRM member.

PCRM is a non-profit research and health advocacy organization that promotes non-animal research methods. In 2004, PCRM worked with a contract laboratory to develop the first cruelty-free insulin assay. Made without fetal calf serum or antibodies from mice, this assay is now marketed and sold worldwide.

Poste claims that the animal testing industry is interested in eliminating animal experiments. Why, then, does Covance continue to test cosmetic ingredients and food additives on animals instead of focusing on creating new technologies that would provide a more humane and effective way of measuring product safety?

- Aysha Akhtar, M.D.
Washington, D.C.

Search for More Content

Custom Search

Bookmark and Share

Past Articles