What really stands out in this article is the absolutely flimsy and ridiculous arguments / rationalization used by those who have decided to go about killing wolves.
Here’s one found in the article below: “For Saunders, killing that wolf was a long-awaited chance to even things out because he has lost two horses to wolves…”
Maybe I need to break this down to show how flimsy and illegitimate this “argument” is. I’ll keep it simple – how would killing another wolf allow you to “get even” with the fact that another wolf supposedly killed two horses? Essentially, you’ve killed to say that killing was wrong. And not only that - the wolves killed for food or to survive. You're simply killing for fun or for some flimsy excuse of getting even with a natural predator.
It’s positions like this that show that taking species like the wolf off the endangered list will only simply put them right back to where they were in numbers. Shows that this really was a move only to appease ranching and hunting interests.
Here’s some facts from the article below:
“Since federal protection was lifted March 28 and states took over wolf management, 37 wolves have been killed, just over 2 percent of their population. Since 66 animals were transplanted to the region 13 years ago, an estimated 1,500 now roam Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.”
Article:
Off endangered list, wolves face new pressure from hunters By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Apr 27, 3:21 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080427/
ap_on_re_us/hunting_wolves
BILLINGS, Mont. - Tony Saunders stalked his prey for 35 miles by snowmobile through western Wyoming's Hoback Basin, finally reaching a clearing where he took out a .270-caliber rifle and shot the wolf twice from 30 yards away.
Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies have been taken off the endangered species list and are being hunted freely for the first time since they were placed on that list three decades ago, and nowhere is that hunting easier than Wyoming.
Most of the state with the exception of the Yellowstone National Park area has been designated a "predator zone," where wolves can be shot at will.
For Saunders, killing that wolf was a long-awaited chance to even things out because he has lost two horses to wolves and blames the canines for depleting local big game herds.
"It's hard for people to understand how devastating they can be," said Saunders, 39, who ranches at Bondurant, Wyo., 30 miles southeast of Jackson, Wyo.
Since federal protection was lifted March 28 and states took over wolf management, 37 wolves have been killed, just over 2 percent of their population. Since 66 animals were transplanted to the region 13 years ago, an estimated 1,500 now roam Wyoming, Montana and Idaho.
Environmental and animal rights groups plan to file a lawsuit Monday seeking an emergency injunction to block the killings and trying to put wolves back on the endangered list.
They predict that if states continue to control the animals' fate and proceed with public hunts, wolves could be driven back nearly to extermination in the region.
"There will be opportunistic shooting 365 days a year. This will become a continual black hole for wolves," said Franz Camenzind with the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, which is joining the lawsuit.
Despite the removal of wolves from the endangered list, killing them in the Northern Rockies is nothing new. Last year, a record 186 were shot, primarily by wildlife agents, for killing and harassing livestock.
But since the beginning of this year, 59 wolves already have been reported killed in the three Northern Rockies states, about three times the 19 killed over the same period last year — most of them just in the month since they lost federal protection.
State officials blamed this year's increased hunting in part on heavy snow, which kept wolf packs at lower elevations where sheep and cattle range.
"That's the reality of managing wolves in a modern landscape. Some of them are going to be removed," said Eric Keszler, spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
In fact, entire packs have been legally killed off in past years because of livestock conflicts, according to biologist Mike Jimenez with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
With public hunts planned this year, federal biologists project the three states will maintain a population of 883 to 1,240 wolves at least for the next few years — well above the government's goal of maintaining a population of at least 300 wolves.
But wolf advocates say the states could systematically cull the population right down to that minimum unless a court intervenes.
Idaho and Wyoming in particular have a "hostile legal regime" that is stacked against wolves, said Doug Honnold, the Earthjustice attorney preparing the lawsuit.
"If anybody can kill wolves, you have no way of ensuring wolf killing isn't excessive," he said.
Honnold and other advocates say a minimum of 2,000 to 3,000 wolves is needed to protect their genetic diversity. They contend the government was on track to meet that goal when it caved in to political pressure and stripped the species of endangered status.
Some state officials and ranchers, including Saunders, acknowledge a lingering hostility for wolves, which had been exterminated in the region in the 1930s.
"There's times I'd like to get rid of all of them, but that's not realistic either," Saunders said. "And I'd like for my son one day to be able to hunt them, too."
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Why is Annual Canadian Baby Seal Slaughter Protected?
A good, brief writing on the economics behind the annual Canadian baby seal slaughter.
By the way...I've held off on posting for about a week in order to maintain focus on this annual slaughter. See the prior posting to learn more about this horrible event.
To follow a group and their campaign and to support them in ending this ridiculously cruel and unnecessary annual slaughter fest, visit their site at: http://www.seashepherd.org/seals2008/
Article:
Re:Seal hunt protest ship seized off East Coast
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/414434
April 13
It is ironic that Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn characterizes protesters against the seal hunt as "money-sucking." Given the economic realities of the hunt, it's clear that the only thing keeping this slaughter going are the subsidies that sealers receive from taxpayers.
These include the cost of search-and-rescue operations for sealers who get into trouble, the cost of "policing" the killing to ensure that humane groups can't film what's being done, the legal costs to fight the European Union's attempts to ban imports of seal-related products from Canada, and the money spent on trying to "spin" this issue so that Canadians will believe there's nothing inhumane about clubbing and skinning thousands of seals to death.
The costs to Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of the Maritimes are likely even higher when you factor in the folks, like myself, who have vowed never to visit this part of Canada until the seal "hunt" is abolished.
And what economic benefit does Canada get in return? About $16 million last year – a fraction of the cost of the subsidies disbursed by the government in order to stain Canada's international reputation.
Paul Warren, Toronto
Loyola Sullivan, Canada's ambassador for fisheries conservation, was concerned with the "disturbing, false and misleading images that distort the image of Canada as a humane nation," claiming that footage used in the European anti-fur campaign was "dated."
Yet when a group of people sit in international waters attempting to get up-to-date footage, their boat is seized in an attempt to stop these newer images from being released.
What is Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn trying to hide by doing this?
Shane Dalgleish, New Norfolk, Australia
Now we know that the real role of the RCMP is to serve and protect commerce. Boarding a ship in international waters is usually called piracy. We can only hope that the Dutch government treats this case with the seriousness it deserves.
The barbaric seal hunt was bad enough. For Canada to flout international law to prevent people from seeing what is actually going on is disgraceful.
Gary Dale, Toronto
Why is this horrific annual event called a "hunt"? What chances do these helpless, hapless sitting ducks have against a gun and/or a Caligula-like device called a hakapik? The very word sends chills down my spine. This is so outdated and so very primitive.
What kind of people do this killing? They call themselves Canadians? I'm ashamed of Canada.
I've cancelled my trip this summer to Newfoundland and Labrador. The TV ads inviting people to "come and see" turn my stomach.
Darina Oravec, Courtice, Ont.
What's up with the word "militant"? Why does the Toronto Star apply it to an animal rights group documenting the seal hunt, but not to the fishermen who illegally cut their lines or the Canadian Coast Guard, which illegally boarded the Sea Shepherd vessel?
This is a word that has normally been associated with Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers over the past few years.
It's interesting that your newspaper uses the same word to describe animal rights activists who are legally filming the slaughter of baby seals.
Bonnie Sullivan, Toronto
By the way...I've held off on posting for about a week in order to maintain focus on this annual slaughter. See the prior posting to learn more about this horrible event.
To follow a group and their campaign and to support them in ending this ridiculously cruel and unnecessary annual slaughter fest, visit their site at: http://www.seashepherd.org/seals2008/
Article:
Re:Seal hunt protest ship seized off East Coast
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/414434
April 13
It is ironic that Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn characterizes protesters against the seal hunt as "money-sucking." Given the economic realities of the hunt, it's clear that the only thing keeping this slaughter going are the subsidies that sealers receive from taxpayers.
These include the cost of search-and-rescue operations for sealers who get into trouble, the cost of "policing" the killing to ensure that humane groups can't film what's being done, the legal costs to fight the European Union's attempts to ban imports of seal-related products from Canada, and the money spent on trying to "spin" this issue so that Canadians will believe there's nothing inhumane about clubbing and skinning thousands of seals to death.
The costs to Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of the Maritimes are likely even higher when you factor in the folks, like myself, who have vowed never to visit this part of Canada until the seal "hunt" is abolished.
And what economic benefit does Canada get in return? About $16 million last year – a fraction of the cost of the subsidies disbursed by the government in order to stain Canada's international reputation.
Paul Warren, Toronto
Loyola Sullivan, Canada's ambassador for fisheries conservation, was concerned with the "disturbing, false and misleading images that distort the image of Canada as a humane nation," claiming that footage used in the European anti-fur campaign was "dated."
Yet when a group of people sit in international waters attempting to get up-to-date footage, their boat is seized in an attempt to stop these newer images from being released.
What is Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn trying to hide by doing this?
Shane Dalgleish, New Norfolk, Australia
Now we know that the real role of the RCMP is to serve and protect commerce. Boarding a ship in international waters is usually called piracy. We can only hope that the Dutch government treats this case with the seriousness it deserves.
The barbaric seal hunt was bad enough. For Canada to flout international law to prevent people from seeing what is actually going on is disgraceful.
Gary Dale, Toronto
Why is this horrific annual event called a "hunt"? What chances do these helpless, hapless sitting ducks have against a gun and/or a Caligula-like device called a hakapik? The very word sends chills down my spine. This is so outdated and so very primitive.
What kind of people do this killing? They call themselves Canadians? I'm ashamed of Canada.
I've cancelled my trip this summer to Newfoundland and Labrador. The TV ads inviting people to "come and see" turn my stomach.
Darina Oravec, Courtice, Ont.
What's up with the word "militant"? Why does the Toronto Star apply it to an animal rights group documenting the seal hunt, but not to the fishermen who illegally cut their lines or the Canadian Coast Guard, which illegally boarded the Sea Shepherd vessel?
This is a word that has normally been associated with Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers over the past few years.
It's interesting that your newspaper uses the same word to describe animal rights activists who are legally filming the slaughter of baby seals.
Bonnie Sullivan, Toronto
Monday, April 07, 2008
Annual Canadian Baby Seal Slaughter Begins: 325,000 Seals Targeted this Year
Well, here we go again.
What really can I report other than gruesome details of baby seals being shot OR bludgeoned - grown men putting clubs or hakapik or picks through the heads of baby seals who cannot move. The result being baby seals wounded and thrashing about in agony on the surface of the ocean.
As stated at the website of the group Sea Shepherd at http://www.seashepherd.org/seals2008/, “Canadian Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn has set this year’s quota at 275,000 harp seals to be killed, 5,000 higher than last year, without any scientific justification and without any market justification…. In total over 325,000 seals are being targeted this year.”
The group that is tireless in fighting this unfortunate spectacle of human cruelty is Sea Shepherd.
To follow their campaign and to support them in ending this ridiculously cruel and unnecessary annual slaughter fest, visit their site at: http://www.seashepherd.org/seals2008/
What really can I report other than gruesome details of baby seals being shot OR bludgeoned - grown men putting clubs or hakapik or picks through the heads of baby seals who cannot move. The result being baby seals wounded and thrashing about in agony on the surface of the ocean.
As stated at the website of the group Sea Shepherd at http://www.seashepherd.org/seals2008/, “Canadian Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn has set this year’s quota at 275,000 harp seals to be killed, 5,000 higher than last year, without any scientific justification and without any market justification…. In total over 325,000 seals are being targeted this year.”
The group that is tireless in fighting this unfortunate spectacle of human cruelty is Sea Shepherd.
To follow their campaign and to support them in ending this ridiculously cruel and unnecessary annual slaughter fest, visit their site at: http://www.seashepherd.org/seals2008/
Colorado Animal Rights Laws 2008 So Far: 3 Important Bills Recently Signed into Law
Some good news. Though again not all that stringent, it’s good to see issues such as Internet Hunting brought to the attention of the public. Hopefully this will spread to other states.
Here is what has been recently signed into law by Governor Ritter so far:
HB-1185 will require that all dogs & cats adopted from shelters and rescue organizations in Colorado be spayed or neutered.
HB-1200 Establishes criminal penalties for Internet hunting in Colorado. This applies not only to operating an Internet hunting facility (which was already made illegal by rule of the Colorado Wildlife Commission), but also to participating in a "hunt" from a computer located in Colorado.
HB-1304 Increases the penalties for killing a bald eagle.
Here is what has been recently signed into law by Governor Ritter so far:
HB-1185 will require that all dogs & cats adopted from shelters and rescue organizations in Colorado be spayed or neutered.
HB-1200 Establishes criminal penalties for Internet hunting in Colorado. This applies not only to operating an Internet hunting facility (which was already made illegal by rule of the Colorado Wildlife Commission), but also to participating in a "hunt" from a computer located in Colorado.
HB-1304 Increases the penalties for killing a bald eagle.
Navy Release EIS: Sonar Training Exercises WILL Kill at Minimum 30 Marine Mammals Per Year: Will Not Impose Stricter Standards Imposed by Judge
Will Not Impose Stricter Standards Imposed by Federal Judge
Surprise, surprise. The US Military will not safeguard any life AND they won't listen to court orders. As stated below, “Navy training exercises could expose 94,370 marine mammals to behavior-altering sonar frequencies each year, potentially injuring or killing as many as 30.”
Article:
Navy Crock-It
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/
04/04/navy/index.html?source=rss
Sonar will kill some marine life but safeguards are adequate, says Navy
Posted at 2:47 PM on 04 Apr 2008
Navy training exercises could expose 94,370 marine mammals to behavior-altering sonar frequencies each year, potentially injuring or killing as many as 30, according to an environmental impact statement released Friday by the Navy. But in its 1,796-page report, the Navy sticks with current safeguards for protecting marine animals, not adopting stricter standards imposed by a federal judge earlier this year. Green groups are likely to challenge the EIS in court, continuing a seemingly neverending cycle of litigation and appeals.
Surprise, surprise. The US Military will not safeguard any life AND they won't listen to court orders. As stated below, “Navy training exercises could expose 94,370 marine mammals to behavior-altering sonar frequencies each year, potentially injuring or killing as many as 30.”
Article:
Navy Crock-It
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/
04/04/navy/index.html?source=rss
Sonar will kill some marine life but safeguards are adequate, says Navy
Posted at 2:47 PM on 04 Apr 2008
Navy training exercises could expose 94,370 marine mammals to behavior-altering sonar frequencies each year, potentially injuring or killing as many as 30, according to an environmental impact statement released Friday by the Navy. But in its 1,796-page report, the Navy sticks with current safeguards for protecting marine animals, not adopting stricter standards imposed by a federal judge earlier this year. Green groups are likely to challenge the EIS in court, continuing a seemingly neverending cycle of litigation and appeals.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Walter and Mcbean Galleries in San Francisco Puts on Exhibit Glorifying Animal Abuse : Don’t Trust Me Portrays Animals Being Killed by a Hammer
Don’t Trust Me Portrays Six Animals—A Sheep, A Horse, an Ox, A Pig, A Goat, and A Doe—Being Struck And Killed By A Hammer
Normally I don’t do postings on actions. However, this is such a horrible exhibit that this warrants your attention.
As stated below, “Don’t Trust Me portrays six animals—a sheep, a horse, an ox, a pig, a goat, and a doe—being struck and killed by a hammer.”
The absolutely disgusting images can be views at: http://www.waltermcbean.com/current.shtml
After viewing, PLEASE EMAIL exhibitions@sfai.edu and let them know that their insistence on glorifying egregious and obvious abuse and killing is selfish and sick. I’m still baffled how killing can serve as art. Perhaps this works for a sadist, but for art lovers, all this does is portray the lowest of human behavior. You can also call the gallery at 415-749-4563.
More can be found below:
Article:
Are Animal Snuff Films Art?
Posted: 26 Mar 2008 07:42 AM CDT
The Walter and McBean Galleries in the Russian Hill neighborhood of San Francisco are currently exhibiting an installation by Adel Abdessemed called "Don't Trust Me," which they apparently believe warrant support of the San Francisco Art Institute.
From the press release:
Don’t Trust Me portrays six animals—a sheep, a horse, an ox, a pig, a goat, and a doe—being struck and killed by a hammer. Each killing occurs so quickly that it’s difficult to determine definitively what has happened. Do these incidents represent slaughter or sacrifice? What are their social, cultural, moral, and political implications? Or are such questions now verging on irrelevance, as if something else altogether were taking place (or about to), something wholly other, unforeseen, unexpected?
If you can stomach it, read the rest of absurd press release--particularly the end:
SFAI’s exhibitions and public programs—a component of which is the Visiting Artists and Scholars Lecture Series—are supported in part by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the Peter Norton Family Foundation, and the Grants for the Arts/San Francisco Hotel Tax Fund. Additional funding for the Visiting Artists and Scholars Lecture Series has been provided by Bob and Betty Klausner. Additional support for Adel Abdessemed’s exhibition, as well as for his Visiting Artists and Scholars lecture, has been provided by the Cultural Services of the French Consulate in San Francisco.
If you have any contacts at the above, please make use of them and express your disgust, outrage, and sadness.
You can call the gallery at 415-749-4563 and leave an articulate message of protest (and few people I know are able to do that without getting enraged, so perhaps a different medium is better), or you can e-mail them at exhibitions@sfai.edu. Of course, ask that the exhibit be removed immediately and that the galleries refrain from supporting such barbaric work in the future.
I have nothing else to say, other than this is one of those moments when I am ashamed to call myself an artist and a human being. If the videos were of our institutional uses of animals, there might be a lesson to be learned. The only lesson I learn here is just how low some people will plunge to garner attention, and just how ridiculous some PR people can be in their attempts to spin the depraved into the honorable.
Normally I don’t do postings on actions. However, this is such a horrible exhibit that this warrants your attention.
As stated below, “Don’t Trust Me portrays six animals—a sheep, a horse, an ox, a pig, a goat, and a doe—being struck and killed by a hammer.”
The absolutely disgusting images can be views at: http://www.waltermcbean.com/current.shtml
After viewing, PLEASE EMAIL exhibitions@sfai.edu and let them know that their insistence on glorifying egregious and obvious abuse and killing is selfish and sick. I’m still baffled how killing can serve as art. Perhaps this works for a sadist, but for art lovers, all this does is portray the lowest of human behavior. You can also call the gallery at 415-749-4563.
More can be found below:
Article:
Are Animal Snuff Films Art?
Posted: 26 Mar 2008 07:42 AM CDT
The Walter and McBean Galleries in the Russian Hill neighborhood of San Francisco are currently exhibiting an installation by Adel Abdessemed called "Don't Trust Me," which they apparently believe warrant support of the San Francisco Art Institute.
From the press release:
Don’t Trust Me portrays six animals—a sheep, a horse, an ox, a pig, a goat, and a doe—being struck and killed by a hammer. Each killing occurs so quickly that it’s difficult to determine definitively what has happened. Do these incidents represent slaughter or sacrifice? What are their social, cultural, moral, and political implications? Or are such questions now verging on irrelevance, as if something else altogether were taking place (or about to), something wholly other, unforeseen, unexpected?
If you can stomach it, read the rest of absurd press release--particularly the end:
SFAI’s exhibitions and public programs—a component of which is the Visiting Artists and Scholars Lecture Series—are supported in part by the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, the Peter Norton Family Foundation, and the Grants for the Arts/San Francisco Hotel Tax Fund. Additional funding for the Visiting Artists and Scholars Lecture Series has been provided by Bob and Betty Klausner. Additional support for Adel Abdessemed’s exhibition, as well as for his Visiting Artists and Scholars lecture, has been provided by the Cultural Services of the French Consulate in San Francisco.
If you have any contacts at the above, please make use of them and express your disgust, outrage, and sadness.
You can call the gallery at 415-749-4563 and leave an articulate message of protest (and few people I know are able to do that without getting enraged, so perhaps a different medium is better), or you can e-mail them at exhibitions@sfai.edu. Of course, ask that the exhibit be removed immediately and that the galleries refrain from supporting such barbaric work in the future.
I have nothing else to say, other than this is one of those moments when I am ashamed to call myself an artist and a human being. If the videos were of our institutional uses of animals, there might be a lesson to be learned. The only lesson I learn here is just how low some people will plunge to garner attention, and just how ridiculous some PR people can be in their attempts to spin the depraved into the honorable.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Group Calls for Johns Hopkins University Medical School to Join Majority of Medical Schools and End Live Animal Labs: Calls for End to Live Pig Labs
As the article points out below, “…Hopkins will be the lone holdout among medical schools in U.S. News & World Report's annual Top 20 ranking….Overall, just 10 of the nation's 126 M.D.-granting medical schools use live animals during surgical rotations, according to the physicians' group.”
This by itself proves that live animal labs aren’t necessary in medical training. If it was, the majority of schools would use them. Yet, they don’t. As stated below, "The ethical argument is that you should not use sentient creatures to our purposes unnecessarily," said Dr. John J. Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist affiliated with group. "The reasons to use live animals, whatever they were, are no longer valid."
Article:
Medical use of live pigs criticized
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pigs27mar27,1,3004653.story
A physicians' group takes aim at Johns Hopkins University for using the animals to train its surgical students.
By Jonathan Bor, The Baltimore Sun
March 27, 2008
BALTIMORE -- Taking aim at one of the last bastions of live-animal training for medical students, a physicians' group that champions animal rights renewed its call Wednesday for Johns Hopkins University to stop using live pigs to teach operating-room techniques.
Calling the practice inhumane and unnecessary, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine noted that Hopkins is one of just two top-tier medical schools still convening live-animal labs.
"The ethical argument is that you should not use sentient creatures to our purposes unnecessarily," said Dr. John J. Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist affiliated with group. "The reasons to use live animals, whatever they were, are no longer valid."
With Case Western University's decision to hold its last live-pig labs this semester, Hopkins will be the lone holdout among medical schools in U.S. News & World Report's annual Top 20 ranking.
Overall, just 10 of the nation's 126 M.D.-granting medical schools use live animals during surgical rotations, according to the physicians' group. A larger number of teaching hospitals use animals to train postgraduate surgical residents, and animals are widely used to test medical devices and surgical techniques.
Hopkins said it had no plans to end the use of live pigs, despite a flood of e-mails from animal rights activists and an editorial in the undergraduate student newspaper.
This by itself proves that live animal labs aren’t necessary in medical training. If it was, the majority of schools would use them. Yet, they don’t. As stated below, "The ethical argument is that you should not use sentient creatures to our purposes unnecessarily," said Dr. John J. Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist affiliated with group. "The reasons to use live animals, whatever they were, are no longer valid."
Article:
Medical use of live pigs criticized
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pigs27mar27,1,3004653.story
A physicians' group takes aim at Johns Hopkins University for using the animals to train its surgical students.
By Jonathan Bor, The Baltimore Sun
March 27, 2008
BALTIMORE -- Taking aim at one of the last bastions of live-animal training for medical students, a physicians' group that champions animal rights renewed its call Wednesday for Johns Hopkins University to stop using live pigs to teach operating-room techniques.
Calling the practice inhumane and unnecessary, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine noted that Hopkins is one of just two top-tier medical schools still convening live-animal labs.
"The ethical argument is that you should not use sentient creatures to our purposes unnecessarily," said Dr. John J. Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist affiliated with group. "The reasons to use live animals, whatever they were, are no longer valid."
With Case Western University's decision to hold its last live-pig labs this semester, Hopkins will be the lone holdout among medical schools in U.S. News & World Report's annual Top 20 ranking.
Overall, just 10 of the nation's 126 M.D.-granting medical schools use live animals during surgical rotations, according to the physicians' group. A larger number of teaching hospitals use animals to train postgraduate surgical residents, and animals are widely used to test medical devices and surgical techniques.
Hopkins said it had no plans to end the use of live pigs, despite a flood of e-mails from animal rights activists and an editorial in the undergraduate student newspaper.
Group Being Sued for Exposing Chinese Company that Uses Tiger Bones in Winemaking
The group being sued is The International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Of course, it’s by another abusing Chinese company who cares little for any other species. They of course deny the use of tiger bones. Yet, I’m not sure if they are just too slow to realize this, but they actually admit to using the bones of a Mammal in the wine. Even though it isn’t of a Tiger, it still is of a mammal – an African lion. “The main ingredients of the ‘animal bone medicated wine’ produced by [Guilen Xiongsen] are rice wine, papayas and African lion bones…”
So, they do admit to using bones in the wine.
For a crash course on the inherent cruelty of the Chinese culture, including video proof, see http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/crash-course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html
Article:
Lions and tigers and … bone wine?
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=4848&type=UTTM
BEN MOOK
Daily Record Assistant Business Editor
March 27, 2008 6:54 PM
Silver Spring-based Discovery Communications LLC was ordered Thursday to turn over footage from one of its Animal Planet shows about the use of tiger bones in winemaking to help bolster the defense of an animal rights group being sued in China.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare asked the U.S. District Court for Maryland, in Greenbelt, on Tuesday to compel Discovery Communications to turn over footage from an episode of its Wildlife Crime Scene show. A federal judge signed off on the subpoena and gave the company until April 25 to turn over the footage and describe where and how it was obtained.
The footage will be used in a civil lawsuit filed against the animal rights group on Oct. 11, 2007. The Guilin Xiongsen Bear & Tiger Mountain Villa Entertainment Center filed the lawsuit against the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in the Beijing High People’s Court. The company claims the animal rights group impugned its reputation through a web article claiming a wine it makes uses tiger skeletons as the primary raw material.
The show in question is a six-part series called Crime Scene Wild, hosted by Steven Gastler, which features undercover investigating along with DNA and forensic science to expose illegal animal trading. The episode being subpoenaed is the final episode that includes a look at the Bear & Tiger Mountain Villa and the making of bone fortified wine. The Crime Scene Wild episode has not aired, and is not slated to air, in the U.S. It has however, been aired in the Animal Planet’s Asian and Australian markets.
Guilin Xiongsen runs a tiger farm, villa, restaurant and winemaking operation at Bear & Tiger Mountain. According to a June 22, 2007, report in the Sydney [Australia] Morning Herald, there were “1,300 captive bred-tigers including 43 frozen carcasses of animals that have died of natural causes” at the site.
The company has vigorously denied an article on IFAW’s Web site that claimed that at any given time the winemaker had “400 tiger skeletons immersed in the entire wine cellar.” And, that “you can see an intact tiger skeleton by randomly looking into a wine tank.”
“The Xiongsen Brand Medicated Wine manufactured and sold by it is produced with animal bones such as aged African lion bones in the Bear & Tiger Mountain Villa upon approval of the [Chinese] State Forestry Administration and Forestry Bureau of the Guangzi Zhuang Autonomous Region,” the complaint in Beijing court reads.
Guilin Xiongsen also disputes the group’s account that tiger meat was served in the villa’s restaurant under the name “king’s meat.” The use of rhinoceros horn and tiger bones has been prohibited by Chinese law since 1993.
“In a word, the plaintiff has never engaged in any tiger bone trade, or prepared tiger meat into various dishes, or produced and sold the so-called ‘tiger-bone medicated wine,’” the company said in the lawsuit. “The main ingredients of the ‘animal bone medicated wine’ produced by [Guilen Xiongsen] are rice wine, papayas and African lion bones, and do not include any ‘tiger bone’ ingredients at all.”
Of course, it’s by another abusing Chinese company who cares little for any other species. They of course deny the use of tiger bones. Yet, I’m not sure if they are just too slow to realize this, but they actually admit to using the bones of a Mammal in the wine. Even though it isn’t of a Tiger, it still is of a mammal – an African lion. “The main ingredients of the ‘animal bone medicated wine’ produced by [Guilen Xiongsen] are rice wine, papayas and African lion bones…”
So, they do admit to using bones in the wine.
For a crash course on the inherent cruelty of the Chinese culture, including video proof, see http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/crash-course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html
Article:
Lions and tigers and … bone wine?
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=4848&type=UTTM
BEN MOOK
Daily Record Assistant Business Editor
March 27, 2008 6:54 PM
Silver Spring-based Discovery Communications LLC was ordered Thursday to turn over footage from one of its Animal Planet shows about the use of tiger bones in winemaking to help bolster the defense of an animal rights group being sued in China.
The International Fund for Animal Welfare asked the U.S. District Court for Maryland, in Greenbelt, on Tuesday to compel Discovery Communications to turn over footage from an episode of its Wildlife Crime Scene show. A federal judge signed off on the subpoena and gave the company until April 25 to turn over the footage and describe where and how it was obtained.
The footage will be used in a civil lawsuit filed against the animal rights group on Oct. 11, 2007. The Guilin Xiongsen Bear & Tiger Mountain Villa Entertainment Center filed the lawsuit against the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in the Beijing High People’s Court. The company claims the animal rights group impugned its reputation through a web article claiming a wine it makes uses tiger skeletons as the primary raw material.
The show in question is a six-part series called Crime Scene Wild, hosted by Steven Gastler, which features undercover investigating along with DNA and forensic science to expose illegal animal trading. The episode being subpoenaed is the final episode that includes a look at the Bear & Tiger Mountain Villa and the making of bone fortified wine. The Crime Scene Wild episode has not aired, and is not slated to air, in the U.S. It has however, been aired in the Animal Planet’s Asian and Australian markets.
Guilin Xiongsen runs a tiger farm, villa, restaurant and winemaking operation at Bear & Tiger Mountain. According to a June 22, 2007, report in the Sydney [Australia] Morning Herald, there were “1,300 captive bred-tigers including 43 frozen carcasses of animals that have died of natural causes” at the site.
The company has vigorously denied an article on IFAW’s Web site that claimed that at any given time the winemaker had “400 tiger skeletons immersed in the entire wine cellar.” And, that “you can see an intact tiger skeleton by randomly looking into a wine tank.”
“The Xiongsen Brand Medicated Wine manufactured and sold by it is produced with animal bones such as aged African lion bones in the Bear & Tiger Mountain Villa upon approval of the [Chinese] State Forestry Administration and Forestry Bureau of the Guangzi Zhuang Autonomous Region,” the complaint in Beijing court reads.
Guilin Xiongsen also disputes the group’s account that tiger meat was served in the villa’s restaurant under the name “king’s meat.” The use of rhinoceros horn and tiger bones has been prohibited by Chinese law since 1993.
“In a word, the plaintiff has never engaged in any tiger bone trade, or prepared tiger meat into various dishes, or produced and sold the so-called ‘tiger-bone medicated wine,’” the company said in the lawsuit. “The main ingredients of the ‘animal bone medicated wine’ produced by [Guilen Xiongsen] are rice wine, papayas and African lion bones, and do not include any ‘tiger bone’ ingredients at all.”
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Colorado Bill that would Increase Regulations on Confined Animals Raised for Pork and Veal (Pigs and Baby Cows) Moves Forward
Nice to see at least the start of a bill like this. Of course, it doesn’t go far enough, but it definitely sends a message and will educate people to the absolute hell that gestating pigs and of course, veal calves go through.
For proof as to the cruelty of veal (abused baby cows) including video proof see http://www.noveal.org
Here is a summary of the bill found in the writing below: “Senate Bill 201, sponsored by District 6 Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, would prohibit the confinement of gestating sows or calves raised for veal in a way that does not allow the animal to stand up, lie down and turn around without touching the enclosure’s sides.”
Article:
Farm animal confinement bill moves forward
http://www.journal-advocate.com/articles/2008/
03/19/news/local_news/local2.txt
Bill would cause suspension of initiative petition drive on issue
By K.C. Mason
Journal-Advocate Capitol correspondent
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:04 PM MDT
DENVER — Under threat of a petition drive for a ballot question, Colorado lawmakers and state Agriculture Commissioner John Stulp are moving forward with a bill to increase regulations on confined animals that are raised for pork and veal.
Senate Bill 201, sponsored by District 6 Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, would prohibit the confinement of gestating sows or calves raised for veal in a way that does not allow the animal to stand up, lie down and turn around without touching the enclosure’s sides.
“My concern is to avert a ballot initiative, which I feel this does,” Stulp said during testimony last week before the Senate Agriculture Committee. “This recognizes the need ... to address future husbandry issues and hopefully get out ahead of the curve.”
Unlike the potential ballot measure, the bill does not include regulation of caged egg-laying hens.
Stulp said the bill also deals with confinement of milk calves, even though Colorado as yet has no veal production facilities. He said veal producers have expressed interest in moving to the state at the invitation of dairy farmers.
“The dairy industry has been involved in some of the discussions around how we will treat veal calves if that industry does come to Colorado,” Stulp said.
The committee, which Isgar chairs, unanimously approved the bill for full Senate debate.
Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, whose eastern Colorado district contains several hog farms, said he reluctantly voted for the bill, despite what he called “the interference of a bunch on animal rights do-gooders.”
“I don’t like using the power of government to force people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise be doing,” said Brophy, who is a wheat and vegetable farmer. “I would have preferred to let the marketplace dictate how we produce things in this country and not government.”
The head of a national animal rights group said that as long as the bill moves forward without amendment, a petition drive for a ballot issue will be held in abeyance.
“We proceeded with the ballot initiative as a place holder in case negotiations went off the track” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Washington D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States.
HSUS recently received approval of a ballot title — Farm Animal Confinement — which clears the way to begin gathering petition signatures. Pacelle said a petition drive would remain on hold unless something happens to kill the bill.
While the legislation covers only pregnant sows and milk calves raised for veal, the ballot initiative also would prohibit confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages.
“We certainly want to ban these inhumane battery cages that won’t allow birds to extend their wings,” Pacelle said. “We consider that a piece of unfinished business, but we will wait to see what happens with this (new regulation) first.”
Pacelle, noting his group was behind two successful ballot issues that banned bear baiting and steel-jawed leg-hold traps in Colorado, said he is confident a ballot issue on confined animals would pass.
“Colorado has a great tradition of Coloradans fighting to protect animals from these inhuman practices,” he said.
Brophy asked Stulp if horses could be next on the humane society’s list, given that legislation is being considered in Congress “that severely limits the ability of horse producers to deal with their animals.”
Brophy said rural residents already deal with unwanted cats and dogs being dumped on farms and ranches, and predicted horses similarly could be abandoned if their owners cannot find a way to get rid of them.
Stulp said his department is seeing an increase in horse rescues, adding that “the whole unwanted horse issue is something that we must address as a society.” He said SB 201 contains a process that would bring stakeholders together to fund solutions to such problems.
“People have big hearts to take care of these animals but may not have the financial resources to take care of them,” Stulp said.
The biggest impact of the bill will be on Colorado’s swine industry, which the Colorado Livestock Association’s Web site touts as the 15th largest in the nation.
“The swine industry will have an opportunity over a 10-year time frame to develop their criteria and standards for implementing the regulations,” Stulp said. “This bill will put into state statute a process that industry supports.”
For proof as to the cruelty of veal (abused baby cows) including video proof see http://www.noveal.org
Here is a summary of the bill found in the writing below: “Senate Bill 201, sponsored by District 6 Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, would prohibit the confinement of gestating sows or calves raised for veal in a way that does not allow the animal to stand up, lie down and turn around without touching the enclosure’s sides.”
Article:
Farm animal confinement bill moves forward
http://www.journal-advocate.com/articles/2008/
03/19/news/local_news/local2.txt
Bill would cause suspension of initiative petition drive on issue
By K.C. Mason
Journal-Advocate Capitol correspondent
Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:04 PM MDT
DENVER — Under threat of a petition drive for a ballot question, Colorado lawmakers and state Agriculture Commissioner John Stulp are moving forward with a bill to increase regulations on confined animals that are raised for pork and veal.
Senate Bill 201, sponsored by District 6 Sen. Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, would prohibit the confinement of gestating sows or calves raised for veal in a way that does not allow the animal to stand up, lie down and turn around without touching the enclosure’s sides.
“My concern is to avert a ballot initiative, which I feel this does,” Stulp said during testimony last week before the Senate Agriculture Committee. “This recognizes the need ... to address future husbandry issues and hopefully get out ahead of the curve.”
Unlike the potential ballot measure, the bill does not include regulation of caged egg-laying hens.
Stulp said the bill also deals with confinement of milk calves, even though Colorado as yet has no veal production facilities. He said veal producers have expressed interest in moving to the state at the invitation of dairy farmers.
“The dairy industry has been involved in some of the discussions around how we will treat veal calves if that industry does come to Colorado,” Stulp said.
The committee, which Isgar chairs, unanimously approved the bill for full Senate debate.
Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, whose eastern Colorado district contains several hog farms, said he reluctantly voted for the bill, despite what he called “the interference of a bunch on animal rights do-gooders.”
“I don’t like using the power of government to force people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise be doing,” said Brophy, who is a wheat and vegetable farmer. “I would have preferred to let the marketplace dictate how we produce things in this country and not government.”
The head of a national animal rights group said that as long as the bill moves forward without amendment, a petition drive for a ballot issue will be held in abeyance.
“We proceeded with the ballot initiative as a place holder in case negotiations went off the track” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Washington D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States.
HSUS recently received approval of a ballot title — Farm Animal Confinement — which clears the way to begin gathering petition signatures. Pacelle said a petition drive would remain on hold unless something happens to kill the bill.
While the legislation covers only pregnant sows and milk calves raised for veal, the ballot initiative also would prohibit confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages.
“We certainly want to ban these inhumane battery cages that won’t allow birds to extend their wings,” Pacelle said. “We consider that a piece of unfinished business, but we will wait to see what happens with this (new regulation) first.”
Pacelle, noting his group was behind two successful ballot issues that banned bear baiting and steel-jawed leg-hold traps in Colorado, said he is confident a ballot issue on confined animals would pass.
“Colorado has a great tradition of Coloradans fighting to protect animals from these inhuman practices,” he said.
Brophy asked Stulp if horses could be next on the humane society’s list, given that legislation is being considered in Congress “that severely limits the ability of horse producers to deal with their animals.”
Brophy said rural residents already deal with unwanted cats and dogs being dumped on farms and ranches, and predicted horses similarly could be abandoned if their owners cannot find a way to get rid of them.
Stulp said his department is seeing an increase in horse rescues, adding that “the whole unwanted horse issue is something that we must address as a society.” He said SB 201 contains a process that would bring stakeholders together to fund solutions to such problems.
“People have big hearts to take care of these animals but may not have the financial resources to take care of them,” Stulp said.
The biggest impact of the bill will be on Colorado’s swine industry, which the Colorado Livestock Association’s Web site touts as the 15th largest in the nation.
“The swine industry will have an opportunity over a 10-year time frame to develop their criteria and standards for implementing the regulations,” Stulp said. “This bill will put into state statute a process that industry supports.”
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Paul McCartney Speaks on what Caused his Move to Vegetarianism and Cruelty-Free Lifestyle: Fishing
This is a great short article. Interestingly, this is one of the first realizations I had before moving into the cruelty free lifestyle. I literally had the exact same realization under the same circumstances. This realization is usually what it takes for one to make the move.
Article:
McCartney hooked vegetarianism on fishing trip
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080312/wl_uk_afp/entertainmentbritainmccartney
29 minutes ago
LONDON (AFP) - Pop legend Paul McCartney turned vegetarian after going on a fishing trip, he reveals in a new celebrity campaign for an animal rights group launched on Wednesday.
The former Beatle, 65, poses next to the words: "I Am Paul McCartney, And I Am A Vegetarian" in the advert for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta).
"Many years ago, I was fishing, and as I was reeling in the poor fish, I realised, 'I am killing him -- all for the passing pleasure it brings me'," he said.
"Something inside me clicked. I realised as I watched him fight for breath that his life was as important to him as mine is to me."
Sir Paul, who is pictured wearing a trilby and a T-shirt with the words "Eat No" over a picture of a cow, said he believed if the world rejected meat it could bring an end to famine.
His late wife, Linda, who died of cancer in 1998, launched a line of vegetarian food in Britain.
Oscar-winning actor Forest Whitaker, former "Baywatch" star Pamela Anderson and Hollywood actress Alicia Silverstone are among other celebrities posing for the vegetarianism campaign.
Article:
McCartney hooked vegetarianism on fishing trip
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080312/wl_uk_afp/entertainmentbritainmccartney
29 minutes ago
LONDON (AFP) - Pop legend Paul McCartney turned vegetarian after going on a fishing trip, he reveals in a new celebrity campaign for an animal rights group launched on Wednesday.
The former Beatle, 65, poses next to the words: "I Am Paul McCartney, And I Am A Vegetarian" in the advert for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta).
"Many years ago, I was fishing, and as I was reeling in the poor fish, I realised, 'I am killing him -- all for the passing pleasure it brings me'," he said.
"Something inside me clicked. I realised as I watched him fight for breath that his life was as important to him as mine is to me."
Sir Paul, who is pictured wearing a trilby and a T-shirt with the words "Eat No" over a picture of a cow, said he believed if the world rejected meat it could bring an end to famine.
His late wife, Linda, who died of cancer in 1998, launched a line of vegetarian food in Britain.
Oscar-winning actor Forest Whitaker, former "Baywatch" star Pamela Anderson and Hollywood actress Alicia Silverstone are among other celebrities posing for the vegetarianism campaign.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Wyoming Makes Dog-Fighting a Felony
Incredible move. To make it a felony really says a lot, especially in a state like Wyoming.
Article:
Wyoming Becomes 50th State to Criminalize Dogfighting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335390,00.html
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
WASHINGTON — With enactment of Wyoming's new law making dog-fighting a felony, all 50 states now have criminalized the bloodsport, a move that the Humane Society of the United States ushers in as a new era for man's best friend.
Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed the legislation Tuesday to up the penalty for participating in dog fighting from a misdemeanor to a felony. Wyoming followed Idaho, whose governor signed similar legislation last week.
With the case of jailed former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick shedding light on the practice, Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle is calling it a new era for dogs and a moment for Americans to savor.
"This is a real reason to celebrate — a landmark moment in the struggle to rid our nation of this hideously cruel activity that destroys so many innocent animals and is so corrosive to the ideals of a decent and civil society," Pacelle said.
Dog fighting involves more than 250,00 dogs each year and is a criminal enterprising involving as many as 140,000 human participants, HSUS says.
The Humane Society argues that cruelty to animals is an indicator of socially maladapted individuals, and cites a Chicago Police Department study that showed 65 percent of people charged with animal abuse crimes were also charged with violent crimes against people.
HSUS has also repeatedly asked the Pentagon to investigate alleged cases of animal cruelty by soldiers in Iraq, suggesting that any soldiers involved in animal cruelty could be suffering psychological trauma from the war zone.
On Monday, Pacelle repeated his request to the Defense Department to insert an explicit prohibition and punishment for cruelty to animals within the Universal Code of Military Justice, citing an Internet video that allegedly showed a U.S. Marine in Iraq tossing a puppy off a cliff.
Article:
Wyoming Becomes 50th State to Criminalize Dogfighting
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335390,00.html
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
WASHINGTON — With enactment of Wyoming's new law making dog-fighting a felony, all 50 states now have criminalized the bloodsport, a move that the Humane Society of the United States ushers in as a new era for man's best friend.
Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed the legislation Tuesday to up the penalty for participating in dog fighting from a misdemeanor to a felony. Wyoming followed Idaho, whose governor signed similar legislation last week.
With the case of jailed former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick shedding light on the practice, Humane Society president Wayne Pacelle is calling it a new era for dogs and a moment for Americans to savor.
"This is a real reason to celebrate — a landmark moment in the struggle to rid our nation of this hideously cruel activity that destroys so many innocent animals and is so corrosive to the ideals of a decent and civil society," Pacelle said.
Dog fighting involves more than 250,00 dogs each year and is a criminal enterprising involving as many as 140,000 human participants, HSUS says.
The Humane Society argues that cruelty to animals is an indicator of socially maladapted individuals, and cites a Chicago Police Department study that showed 65 percent of people charged with animal abuse crimes were also charged with violent crimes against people.
HSUS has also repeatedly asked the Pentagon to investigate alleged cases of animal cruelty by soldiers in Iraq, suggesting that any soldiers involved in animal cruelty could be suffering psychological trauma from the war zone.
On Monday, Pacelle repeated his request to the Defense Department to insert an explicit prohibition and punishment for cruelty to animals within the Universal Code of Military Justice, citing an Internet video that allegedly showed a U.S. Marine in Iraq tossing a puppy off a cliff.
Kashmir Area of India Begins Poisoning Stray Dogs: Plan to Kill 100,000
Sad once again to see a state or political entity rely on killing to solve a problem. And to use such a painful method to do it.
Article:
Indian Kashmir to poison 100,000 stray dogs in attempt to halt rabies
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indian-kashmir-to-poison-100000-stray-dogs-in-attempt-to-halt-rabies-792780.html
Independent.co.uk Web
By Hilal Ahmed in Srinagar
Friday, 7 March 2008
Authorities in Indian Kashmir have begun poisoning stray dogs in an anti-rabies programme that aims to kill 100,000 dogs in the region's main city.
Animal rights activists vowed to go to court in an attempt to stop the slaughter planned in Srinagar, saying it is an illegal and cruel solution to a problem that could be better addressed with other methods.
Riyaz Ahmad, the city's health officer, said: "These dogs have become a big nuisance and they are threatening humans. We have placed orders for the poison and then we will launch a large-scale drive."
Dr Ahmad said some 500 dogs had been killed so far and that the target was to exterminate all the city's strays –estimated at more than 100,000.
While the drive has been touted as an anti-rabies initiative, Dr Ahmad acknowledged that with only two deaths from 1,341 dog bites reported in Srinagar last year, it was more about appeasing a public that seems overwhelmingly to support the plan.
Shabir Ahmad, a construction worker in the city, said: "They should have done it earlier; these dogs have made our lives hell."
Animal rights activists said they would try to stop the killings. "We are going to file a suit against the municipal corporation if they go ahead with this, because this poisoning drive will be against the prevention of cruelty act," said Javaid Iqbal Shah, the deputy head of the Srinagar Society to Prevent Cruelty to Animals. He said the poison used, strychnine, was particularly cruel. "It cripples the nervous system and then chokes the animal," he said. "It is not a good sight to see these animals die by the roadside."
Mr Shah has urged the city to carry out a sterilisation programme instead but acknowledged that his organisation had only managed to sterilise 400 dogs in the past two years.
India accounts for more than 60 per cent of the estimated 35,000 annual global rabies deaths, according to the World Health organisation, and stray dogs are often blamed.
Article:
Indian Kashmir to poison 100,000 stray dogs in attempt to halt rabies
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indian-kashmir-to-poison-100000-stray-dogs-in-attempt-to-halt-rabies-792780.html
Independent.co.uk Web
By Hilal Ahmed in Srinagar
Friday, 7 March 2008
Authorities in Indian Kashmir have begun poisoning stray dogs in an anti-rabies programme that aims to kill 100,000 dogs in the region's main city.
Animal rights activists vowed to go to court in an attempt to stop the slaughter planned in Srinagar, saying it is an illegal and cruel solution to a problem that could be better addressed with other methods.
Riyaz Ahmad, the city's health officer, said: "These dogs have become a big nuisance and they are threatening humans. We have placed orders for the poison and then we will launch a large-scale drive."
Dr Ahmad said some 500 dogs had been killed so far and that the target was to exterminate all the city's strays –estimated at more than 100,000.
While the drive has been touted as an anti-rabies initiative, Dr Ahmad acknowledged that with only two deaths from 1,341 dog bites reported in Srinagar last year, it was more about appeasing a public that seems overwhelmingly to support the plan.
Shabir Ahmad, a construction worker in the city, said: "They should have done it earlier; these dogs have made our lives hell."
Animal rights activists said they would try to stop the killings. "We are going to file a suit against the municipal corporation if they go ahead with this, because this poisoning drive will be against the prevention of cruelty act," said Javaid Iqbal Shah, the deputy head of the Srinagar Society to Prevent Cruelty to Animals. He said the poison used, strychnine, was particularly cruel. "It cripples the nervous system and then chokes the animal," he said. "It is not a good sight to see these animals die by the roadside."
Mr Shah has urged the city to carry out a sterilisation programme instead but acknowledged that his organisation had only managed to sterilise 400 dogs in the past two years.
India accounts for more than 60 per cent of the estimated 35,000 annual global rabies deaths, according to the World Health organisation, and stray dogs are often blamed.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Cruel South Africa Revises 1994 Ban and will Allow the Killing of Elephants
What more can I say but how absolutely ridiculous, callous and plain stupid. Killing elephants for the flawed decisions of human encroachment on native elephant lands is just tragic.
As stated below, the only thing now to do is to boycott South Africa. Anyone who thinks they'll find a legitimate eco vacation in South Africa had better reassess that thought. Killing elephants proves that the government of South Africa cares nothing about wildlife.
Article:
South Africa to allow elephant killing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/
ap_on_re_af/south_africa_elephants
Mon Feb 25, 7:01 AM ET
PRETORIA, South Africa - South Africa said it will allow elephants to be killed to control their population, reversing a 1994 ban and immediately drawing criticism from animal rights activists.
In a government statement given to reporters Monday, killing elephants is described as one way of managing growing populations.
The government in 1994 banned culling the elephant population, but since then, the number of the giant beasts in the country has ballooned from 8,000 to more than 20,000. The new policy becomes official Friday.
Animal rights defenders threatened to call for tourist boycotts and protests and to take legal action against the measure.
As stated below, the only thing now to do is to boycott South Africa. Anyone who thinks they'll find a legitimate eco vacation in South Africa had better reassess that thought. Killing elephants proves that the government of South Africa cares nothing about wildlife.
Article:
South Africa to allow elephant killing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/
ap_on_re_af/south_africa_elephants
Mon Feb 25, 7:01 AM ET
PRETORIA, South Africa - South Africa said it will allow elephants to be killed to control their population, reversing a 1994 ban and immediately drawing criticism from animal rights activists.
In a government statement given to reporters Monday, killing elephants is described as one way of managing growing populations.
The government in 1994 banned culling the elephant population, but since then, the number of the giant beasts in the country has ballooned from 8,000 to more than 20,000. The new policy becomes official Friday.
Animal rights defenders threatened to call for tourist boycotts and protests and to take legal action against the measure.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Kosher Jewish Method of Slaughter Known as “Shackle and Hoist,” Exposed For Its Inherent Cruelty: Illegal In the US, It Is Practiced Around Wo
Another religion that has absolutely no concern for animal welfare.
In the “shackle and hoist,” method, the animal is pulled up into the air by one of its hind legs and then dropped onto the ground before its throat is slit.
It should be noted that this method is illegal in the United States. Unfortunately though, Jewish rules dictate that the animal must be upside down when it is slaughter.
This cruelty is mandated (hence, strongly supported) by Israel’s chief rabbis (and hence, Judaism.)
Another sad example of how ignorance in religion leads to no concern for animal cruelty.
Article:
Widespread Slaughter Method Scrutinized for Alleged Cruelty
http://www.forward.com/articles/12666/
By Nathaniel Popper
Wed. Feb 13, 2008
Over the past few decades, kosher meat producers have learned what many others in the industry know: The broad expanses of rural Argentina and Uruguay have everything needed to make great beef, with a stable climate and seemingly endless pastures for grazing. The labor is cheap, and the open pastures on which the cows are raised mean that much of the meat can be marketed with those increasingly alluring tags of “natural” and “free range.”
As a result, a majority of Israel’s beef — and a large portion of America’s kosher meat — now comes from South America. In recent years, every major American kosher meat producer has set up a South American operation.
There is just one, big problem: the way the animals are killed. A majority of the South American slaughterhouses producing kosher meat use a method known as “shackle and hoist,” whereby the cow is pulled up into the air by one of its hind legs and then dropped onto the ground before its throat is slit. The method is illegal under most conditions in the United States, but remains popular among kosher producers elsewhere because it allows the cow to be upside down when it is slaughtered — as is required by Israel’s chief rabbis, the final authorities on kosher meat entering the Jewish state.
The method will be given a public airing this week with the release of a video taken by the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. According to exclusive information given to the Forward, the video was shot in late October 2007 by an undercover investigator during two days of kosher slaughter at a plant in Uruguay. PETA has not yet released the video, but a copy was given to the Forward, which has been investigating the practice since last fall. In it, the animals can be seen hanging from a single leg, struggling in the air and bellowing. Once the animal is put on the ground, it is shown writhing and being restrained by multiple workers who step on it and prod it before the cut.
“It is in a category by itself for badness,” said Temple Grandin, an American animal rights expert who has advised many kosher meat companies, referring to “shackle and hoist.”
“It’s cruel to the animals and it’s dangerous for the employees,” Grandin added.
PETA raised controversy in the past with undercover videos from kosher plants, sparking some to accuse it of anti-Jewish bias — a charge PETA has denied. In this case, PETA appears to have come to an issue already being pursued behind closed doors by certain kosher authorities. Over the last year, the Forward has learned, America’s largest kosher supervision agency, the Orthodox Union, has been concerned enough about “shackle and hoist” slaughter to begin a quiet campaign to have the Israeli rabbinical authorities change it.
“It’s not the kind of system that we want to have, that we would be proud of,” Rabbi Menachem Genack, the CEO of the Orthodox Union’s Kosher Division, told the Forward.
The Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism passed a ruling in 2000 calling the “shackle and hoist” method a “violation of Jewish law.” In anticipation of the new revelations, the organization reiterated its opposition at a meeting earlier this week.
The plant shown in the PETA video is located in Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo. According to Orthodox Union authorities, the kosher plant in question produces meat for Israel. The Orthodox Union’s top expert on South American meat, Rabbi Seth Mandel, says that even within the problematic realm of “shackle and hoist,” the new video shows an unusually bad case.
“Not only is it unusual — this would not be allowed to go on in plants [slaughtering] for the U.S.,” said Mandel.
Despite the concerns of the Orthodox Union, the organization still certifies kosher plants in South America that use “shackle and hoist”; indeed most kosher meat entering the United States from South America is produced using the method, according to Genack. Genack said change has been slow to come because the Israelis are the major market force in South America and thus dictate the standards of meat production in the region.
“This will not succeed unless we have the support of the Israeli companies, and that requires a push from the chief rabbis there,” Genack said.
The willingness of the Orthodox Union to continue to allow “shackle and hoist” has already drawn fire from PETA.
“I think it’s shameful,” said Aaron Gross, a PETA consultant who has worked on the organization’s projects involving kosher slaughter. “Anything they’ve been doing to improve the situation, I applaud. I just wish they would do it more publicly.”
Over the last year, Genack said, he has had numerous private talks about this issue with both Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, and Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Sephardic chief rabbi. In late 2007, Metzger and Amar convened a meeting of rabbis in Israel to discuss the issue, according to people involved. Afterward, Genack said he received a letter in which he was assured that the Israeli chief rabbis were looking to change the practice. Just last week, Genack said he spoke with Metzger on the phone about pushing for change.
Partially at Genack’s insistence, the chief rabbis invited a veterinarian who specializes in kosher slaughter, Rabbi I.M. Levinger, to attend their meeting last fall. Levinger told the Forward that the issue was discussed, but that the chief rabbis were hesitant to commit to anything.
“They want to see what they can reach with recommendations,” Levinger said. “I feel that this will not be much, I am afraid.”
PETA has said that they have tried to speak with the Israeli chief rabbinate in the past, but have not heard back. When reached by the Forward on Tuesday, the head of the Israeli chief rabbinate’s import division, Rabbi Ezra Harari, said he was not familiar with the issue and declined to comment.
Rabbinical authorities say that the chief rabbis mandate that cows be upside down because the blood drains faster and the animal cannot fall on the knife.
The current PETA campaign builds on the publicity the group garnered with an undercover video released in 2004 from America’s largest kosher slaughterhouse, AgriProcessors, which is located in Iowa. AgriProcessors is the only kosher meat producer in America that is certified to export meat to Israel. The company uses what is known as a rotating pen to meet the Israeli standard that the animal be upside down when it is slaughtered.
AgriProcessors’ use of the rotating pen was criticized in 2005. Ironically, it is the rotating pen — a mechanized corral that holds the animal while it is flipped over — that many animal rights activists see as the best alternative to the “shackle and hoist” method in South America. In fact, in South America, AgriProcessors has led the way, being the first and only kosher company to install a rotating pen in its slaughterhouse, according to the Orthodox Union. This has earned it praise from PETA.
“I think it’s great that AgriProcessors has taken that step,” said PETA’s Gross. “It shows you how bringing this stuff out in the open motivates change.” AgriProcessors did not respond to requests for comment.
The kosher rush into South America began in 1950, according to the Israeli chief rabbinate. Today, close to 60,000 tons of meat come into Israel each year from South America.
South America’s biggest draw is its cheap labor, which is also a primary reason that companies opt for the “shackle and hoist” method. The technique relies on little technology but a comparatively large number of laborers to restrain the cattle.
Most American companies use their South American product for processed meats like salami and bologna — a choice driven in part because the cows are raised on grass, which does not make the meat as fatty as corn-fed American beef. Recently, though, grass-fed beef has taken on its own allure with the explosion of demand for free-range meat. Both kosher authorities and animal rights activists say that before the slaughtering begins, conditions in South America make for more pleasant living conditions than in America, where most cattle are confined to feed lots for their entire lives.
“In Uruguay, the animals are blessed,” said Mandel, the rabbi who oversees meat production in South America. “They are lolling outside — plenty of grass to eat. There is nothing to mistreat them — until the day they are loaded on a truck.”
That final step — the “shackle and hoist” — was common in America in the early 20th century, when labor was cheaper and before Congress passed the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act.
In American kosher slaughterhouses today, the Orthodox Union mandates standing slaughter, which it promotes partially for humane reasons.
The Israeli animal rights group, Concern for Helping Animals in Israel, has recently written to both chief rabbis questioning whether the South American practice could be compatible with Jewish law.
The letter, which was written by Rabbi Adam Frank, an activist with the organization, asked: “Since less painful and more humane methods of animal restraint and treatment exist and are used in the kosher slaughter process, is the Shackling & Hoisting of a conscious animal an unnecessarily cruel practice, thus defining it as prohibited under Jewish law?”
Officials with Frank’s organization said they have not heard back from the chief rabbinate.
In the “shackle and hoist,” method, the animal is pulled up into the air by one of its hind legs and then dropped onto the ground before its throat is slit.
It should be noted that this method is illegal in the United States. Unfortunately though, Jewish rules dictate that the animal must be upside down when it is slaughter.
This cruelty is mandated (hence, strongly supported) by Israel’s chief rabbis (and hence, Judaism.)
Another sad example of how ignorance in religion leads to no concern for animal cruelty.
Article:
Widespread Slaughter Method Scrutinized for Alleged Cruelty
http://www.forward.com/articles/12666/
By Nathaniel Popper
Wed. Feb 13, 2008
Over the past few decades, kosher meat producers have learned what many others in the industry know: The broad expanses of rural Argentina and Uruguay have everything needed to make great beef, with a stable climate and seemingly endless pastures for grazing. The labor is cheap, and the open pastures on which the cows are raised mean that much of the meat can be marketed with those increasingly alluring tags of “natural” and “free range.”
As a result, a majority of Israel’s beef — and a large portion of America’s kosher meat — now comes from South America. In recent years, every major American kosher meat producer has set up a South American operation.
There is just one, big problem: the way the animals are killed. A majority of the South American slaughterhouses producing kosher meat use a method known as “shackle and hoist,” whereby the cow is pulled up into the air by one of its hind legs and then dropped onto the ground before its throat is slit. The method is illegal under most conditions in the United States, but remains popular among kosher producers elsewhere because it allows the cow to be upside down when it is slaughtered — as is required by Israel’s chief rabbis, the final authorities on kosher meat entering the Jewish state.
The method will be given a public airing this week with the release of a video taken by the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. According to exclusive information given to the Forward, the video was shot in late October 2007 by an undercover investigator during two days of kosher slaughter at a plant in Uruguay. PETA has not yet released the video, but a copy was given to the Forward, which has been investigating the practice since last fall. In it, the animals can be seen hanging from a single leg, struggling in the air and bellowing. Once the animal is put on the ground, it is shown writhing and being restrained by multiple workers who step on it and prod it before the cut.
“It is in a category by itself for badness,” said Temple Grandin, an American animal rights expert who has advised many kosher meat companies, referring to “shackle and hoist.”
“It’s cruel to the animals and it’s dangerous for the employees,” Grandin added.
PETA raised controversy in the past with undercover videos from kosher plants, sparking some to accuse it of anti-Jewish bias — a charge PETA has denied. In this case, PETA appears to have come to an issue already being pursued behind closed doors by certain kosher authorities. Over the last year, the Forward has learned, America’s largest kosher supervision agency, the Orthodox Union, has been concerned enough about “shackle and hoist” slaughter to begin a quiet campaign to have the Israeli rabbinical authorities change it.
“It’s not the kind of system that we want to have, that we would be proud of,” Rabbi Menachem Genack, the CEO of the Orthodox Union’s Kosher Division, told the Forward.
The Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism passed a ruling in 2000 calling the “shackle and hoist” method a “violation of Jewish law.” In anticipation of the new revelations, the organization reiterated its opposition at a meeting earlier this week.
The plant shown in the PETA video is located in Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo. According to Orthodox Union authorities, the kosher plant in question produces meat for Israel. The Orthodox Union’s top expert on South American meat, Rabbi Seth Mandel, says that even within the problematic realm of “shackle and hoist,” the new video shows an unusually bad case.
“Not only is it unusual — this would not be allowed to go on in plants [slaughtering] for the U.S.,” said Mandel.
Despite the concerns of the Orthodox Union, the organization still certifies kosher plants in South America that use “shackle and hoist”; indeed most kosher meat entering the United States from South America is produced using the method, according to Genack. Genack said change has been slow to come because the Israelis are the major market force in South America and thus dictate the standards of meat production in the region.
“This will not succeed unless we have the support of the Israeli companies, and that requires a push from the chief rabbis there,” Genack said.
The willingness of the Orthodox Union to continue to allow “shackle and hoist” has already drawn fire from PETA.
“I think it’s shameful,” said Aaron Gross, a PETA consultant who has worked on the organization’s projects involving kosher slaughter. “Anything they’ve been doing to improve the situation, I applaud. I just wish they would do it more publicly.”
Over the last year, Genack said, he has had numerous private talks about this issue with both Rabbi Yona Metzger, the Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, and Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Sephardic chief rabbi. In late 2007, Metzger and Amar convened a meeting of rabbis in Israel to discuss the issue, according to people involved. Afterward, Genack said he received a letter in which he was assured that the Israeli chief rabbis were looking to change the practice. Just last week, Genack said he spoke with Metzger on the phone about pushing for change.
Partially at Genack’s insistence, the chief rabbis invited a veterinarian who specializes in kosher slaughter, Rabbi I.M. Levinger, to attend their meeting last fall. Levinger told the Forward that the issue was discussed, but that the chief rabbis were hesitant to commit to anything.
“They want to see what they can reach with recommendations,” Levinger said. “I feel that this will not be much, I am afraid.”
PETA has said that they have tried to speak with the Israeli chief rabbinate in the past, but have not heard back. When reached by the Forward on Tuesday, the head of the Israeli chief rabbinate’s import division, Rabbi Ezra Harari, said he was not familiar with the issue and declined to comment.
Rabbinical authorities say that the chief rabbis mandate that cows be upside down because the blood drains faster and the animal cannot fall on the knife.
The current PETA campaign builds on the publicity the group garnered with an undercover video released in 2004 from America’s largest kosher slaughterhouse, AgriProcessors, which is located in Iowa. AgriProcessors is the only kosher meat producer in America that is certified to export meat to Israel. The company uses what is known as a rotating pen to meet the Israeli standard that the animal be upside down when it is slaughtered.
AgriProcessors’ use of the rotating pen was criticized in 2005. Ironically, it is the rotating pen — a mechanized corral that holds the animal while it is flipped over — that many animal rights activists see as the best alternative to the “shackle and hoist” method in South America. In fact, in South America, AgriProcessors has led the way, being the first and only kosher company to install a rotating pen in its slaughterhouse, according to the Orthodox Union. This has earned it praise from PETA.
“I think it’s great that AgriProcessors has taken that step,” said PETA’s Gross. “It shows you how bringing this stuff out in the open motivates change.” AgriProcessors did not respond to requests for comment.
The kosher rush into South America began in 1950, according to the Israeli chief rabbinate. Today, close to 60,000 tons of meat come into Israel each year from South America.
South America’s biggest draw is its cheap labor, which is also a primary reason that companies opt for the “shackle and hoist” method. The technique relies on little technology but a comparatively large number of laborers to restrain the cattle.
Most American companies use their South American product for processed meats like salami and bologna — a choice driven in part because the cows are raised on grass, which does not make the meat as fatty as corn-fed American beef. Recently, though, grass-fed beef has taken on its own allure with the explosion of demand for free-range meat. Both kosher authorities and animal rights activists say that before the slaughtering begins, conditions in South America make for more pleasant living conditions than in America, where most cattle are confined to feed lots for their entire lives.
“In Uruguay, the animals are blessed,” said Mandel, the rabbi who oversees meat production in South America. “They are lolling outside — plenty of grass to eat. There is nothing to mistreat them — until the day they are loaded on a truck.”
That final step — the “shackle and hoist” — was common in America in the early 20th century, when labor was cheaper and before Congress passed the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act.
In American kosher slaughterhouses today, the Orthodox Union mandates standing slaughter, which it promotes partially for humane reasons.
The Israeli animal rights group, Concern for Helping Animals in Israel, has recently written to both chief rabbis questioning whether the South American practice could be compatible with Jewish law.
The letter, which was written by Rabbi Adam Frank, an activist with the organization, asked: “Since less painful and more humane methods of animal restraint and treatment exist and are used in the kosher slaughter process, is the Shackling & Hoisting of a conscious animal an unnecessarily cruel practice, thus defining it as prohibited under Jewish law?”
Officials with Frank’s organization said they have not heard back from the chief rabbinate.
Two Employees of Hallmark Westland Meat Packing Company Charged for Felony Animal Cruelty: Company Supplies School Lunch Program
Last week we posted on this disturbing story. In it, you will see video proof of egregious animal torture.
We posted on this at: http://geari.blogspot.com/2008/01/video-footage-exposes-truth-behind.html
The video proof can be seen directly at: http://video.hsus.org/
Very glad these charges were brought. However, torture of animals is still very rampant in slaughterhouses. These people were just unfortunate to be caught. The government has not added enough investigators to look at every operation in the country. As such, these crimes of abuse will go on.
Article:
Animal Cruelty Charges Filed
http://americanagriculturist.com/index.aspx?ascxid=fpStory&fpsid=32291&fpstid=8
Compiled By Staff
February 17, 2008
On Friday, two former employees of the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company were charged by the San Bernadino District Attorney for felony animal cruelty. On Sunday, USDA announced additional actions as a result of the ongoing investigation.
"USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service has evidence that Hallmark/Westland did not consistently contact the FSIS public health veterinarian in situations in which cattle became non-ambulatory after passing ante-mortem inspection, which is not compliant with FSIS regulations," says Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. "Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection FSIS has determined them to be unfit for human food and the company is conducting a recall."
Operations at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing remain under suspension by FSIS. The products destined for the Federal food assistance programs, including the National School Lunch Program, will now be removed from schools and other holding facilities and destroyed.
"We applaud state and federal actions to investigate and correct the situation it found in this single plant among the thousands that work every day to deliver our high-quality, nutritious and safe beef products to consumers in this country and around the world," says Dave Bateman, chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Board. "The beef checkoff remains committed to doing what it can to maintain these high standards."
The Office of the Inspector General and the Food Safety and Inspection Service continue the investigation. We will respond immediately if further findings warrant. Details about this recall and USDA actions are available at www.usda.gov/actions.
We posted on this at: http://geari.blogspot.com/2008/01/video-footage-exposes-truth-behind.html
The video proof can be seen directly at: http://video.hsus.org/
Very glad these charges were brought. However, torture of animals is still very rampant in slaughterhouses. These people were just unfortunate to be caught. The government has not added enough investigators to look at every operation in the country. As such, these crimes of abuse will go on.
Article:
Animal Cruelty Charges Filed
http://americanagriculturist.com/index.aspx?ascxid=fpStory&fpsid=32291&fpstid=8
Compiled By Staff
February 17, 2008
On Friday, two former employees of the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company were charged by the San Bernadino District Attorney for felony animal cruelty. On Sunday, USDA announced additional actions as a result of the ongoing investigation.
"USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service has evidence that Hallmark/Westland did not consistently contact the FSIS public health veterinarian in situations in which cattle became non-ambulatory after passing ante-mortem inspection, which is not compliant with FSIS regulations," says Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer. "Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection FSIS has determined them to be unfit for human food and the company is conducting a recall."
Operations at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing remain under suspension by FSIS. The products destined for the Federal food assistance programs, including the National School Lunch Program, will now be removed from schools and other holding facilities and destroyed.
"We applaud state and federal actions to investigate and correct the situation it found in this single plant among the thousands that work every day to deliver our high-quality, nutritious and safe beef products to consumers in this country and around the world," says Dave Bateman, chairman of the Cattlemen's Beef Board. "The beef checkoff remains committed to doing what it can to maintain these high standards."
The Office of the Inspector General and the Food Safety and Inspection Service continue the investigation. We will respond immediately if further findings warrant. Details about this recall and USDA actions are available at www.usda.gov/actions.
Mercury in Dolphins may be only Issue that Stops Cruel Annual Japanese Dolphin Slaughter
Unfortunately, the Japanese were not going to see the obvious cruelty in the horrible dolphin slaughter. Perhaps the presence of mercury in their meat will be the only thing that does.
To see video proof of the horror of the annual Japanese dolphin slaughter see our posting on it at http://geari.blogspot.com/search?q=dolphin+japan
Article:
Mercury risk poses threat to Japanese dolphin hunt
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/20/
asia/dolphin.php
By Martin Fackler
Published: February 20, 2008
TAIJI, Japan: For years, Western activists have traveled to this remote port to protest the annual dolphin "drive." And for years, local fishermen have ignored them, herding the animals into a small cove and slashing them until the tide flows red. But now a new menace may succeed where activists have failed: mercury.
This town of 3,500 residents on a majestic, rocky stretch of coast is fiercely proud of its centuries-old tradition of hunting dolphins and whaling. Residents are used to the international scorn that accompanies the dolphin drive, almost as much an annual ritual as the drive itself, and have closed ranks in the face of rising outrage - until now.
Dolphin meat is a prized local delicacy, served raw as sashimi or boiled with soy sauce. But in June, laboratory tests showed high levels of mercury in dolphin and pilot whale, a small whale that resembles a dolphin, caught and sold here. At the urging of two town council members, schools promised to stop serving pilot whale for lunch, and some local supermarkets removed it and dolphin from their shelves.
Rather than embrace the changes, this tight-knit community has been divided, with most local officials and the fishermen's union insisting that the mercury threat is being overblown, while a minority here has begun to question a tradition.
"We are not against whaling," including the dolphin hunts, said Junichiro Yamashita, one of the council members, who paid for the mercury tests himself after the town refused to pay. "This is a small town,
The problems are not limited to Taiji. Japan is one of the world's largest consumers of whales and dolphins, yet the Health and Agriculture ministries, as well as the media, have said little about the growing mercury levels in whale and dolphin meat.
Indeed, the whaling industry seems to enjoy a protected status here, mainly as a symbol of tradition, defended against foreign interference.
"There is a real danger in whale and dolphin meat, but word is not getting out," said Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido and an expert on mercury in sea animals.
Japan kills 1,000 minke and other great whales every year in controversial research whaling off the coast of Antarctica and in the northern Pacific. Japan calls the hunt "research" in order to avoid an international ban on commercial whaling, but then sells the meat to supermarkets. One hundred more whales and 21,000 dolphins are killed annually in coastal waters, according to Japan's Fisheries Agency.
Still, the meat is hardly a vital food source: only a minority of Japanese eat whale, and dolphin is even less common, consumed in a handful of rural areas and regional cities like Osaka.
Taiji is the best known source of dolphin meat, partly because it kills the most animals, about 2,000 annually, in a season that runs from September to April. In Taiji, fishermen use a method called oikomi, or "the drive," in which they bang on metal poles to create a wall of sound that pushes panicked dolphin and pilot whales into a cove for killing.
Gruesome photos of the blood-filled cove, and protests by mostly Western environmental groups, seem to have only strengthened the town's resolve to hold fast to its customs. According to the town's whaling museum, the people of Taiji have hunted coastal whales for 400 years. With few other sources of livelihood, whaling is a mainstay of the local economy.
"We are a whaling community, and we don't want to lose that," said Katsutoshi Mihara, chairman of Taiji's town council. "Here, all boys grew up dreaming of hunting whales." (The Japanese word for whaling, hogei, also encompasses hunting dolphins.)
The mayor and most town leaders point to a Health Ministry report that said the meats are safe in moderation.
Strong proponents of whaling like Mihara say they fear that the mercury scare may damage the popularity of dolphin meat, which accounts for about a third of the town's $3 million fishing industry, according to the fishermen's association. Dolphin also fetches higher prices than other locally caught seafood: in a Taiji supermarket, a pound, or about half a kilogram, of frozen dolphin meat recently sold for about ¥1,500, or $14, roughly the price of sashimi-grade tuna.
Taiji's mercury debate comes amid rising worldwide concern over mercury in other, more globally accepted types of seafood, particularly tuna. Like tuna, dolphins and small whales are predators that appear to be accumulating mercury as they feed on fish in the world's increasingly contaminated oceans.
In fact, dolphins can build up far more mercury than tuna because dolphins live to about 40 years, versus a decade for large tuna species, said Endo, of the University of Hokkaido.
When consumed by humans over an extended period, mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and death. In fact, the world's worst case of mercury poisoning occurred in Japan in the 1950s, when thousands were killed, made ill or crippled in the city of Minamata from mercury dumped into the sea as industrial waste.
Endo participated in the studies that first brought mercury risks in dolphin to light. Since 2000, he has tested hundreds of samples of dolphin and whale meat around the country. In dolphin and pilot whale, he has typically found mercury levels ranging from 10 to 100 parts per million, far above the Japanese government's advisory level of 0.4 parts per million.
The most contaminated sample he ever found was from the internal organs of a pilot whale sold in a Taiji supermarket - 2,000 parts per million.
Despite the extreme sensitivity to mercury poisoning in Japan because of the Minamata case, the Health and Agriculture ministries have done little to inform the public about mercury in whale and dolphin meat, say Endo and other biologists. While the Health Ministry has done its own surveys of dolphin and pilot whale that show mercury levels of 10 to 50 times the advisory level, the only warning it has issued is for pregnant women.
Ministry officials say broader warnings are not needed because the higher levels are not a health risk for most people if they eat the meat infrequently, giving the body time to discharge the mercury. But critics accuse the government and media of ignoring the mercury issue, including the dispute in Taiji.
The same wall of silence exists in Taiji, many residents said. Yamashita and the other council member who raised the mercury issue, Hisato Ryono, said local newspapers had not written about their warnings, and city hall has said little in public about mercury.
To get word out, the two paid to have 1,900 fliers printed and sent to locals.
Several residents said they were shocked and alarmed when they read the fliers last summer. They also said they were angry at the town government's failure to address the concerns over mercury, adding that they no longer ate dolphin meat.
The residents refused to give their names for fear of being ostracized by their neighbors. "The flier is all I know about the mercury issue," said one 42-year-old woman, who said she was worried because her third-grade child had eaten pilot whale meat at school.
Older residents dismissed the mercury fears, saying they had eaten dolphin all their lives without ill effect.
Such generational differences may be what finally ends the dolphin hunt. Most of those under 40 no longer eat the meat, according to many residents.
"We're not saying that consumption of dolphin should disappear, but I think it's inevitable that it will," said Ryono, the council member. "As the older generation disappears, so will demand for dolphin meat."
To see video proof of the horror of the annual Japanese dolphin slaughter see our posting on it at http://geari.blogspot.com/search?q=dolphin+japan
Article:
Mercury risk poses threat to Japanese dolphin hunt
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/20/
asia/dolphin.php
By Martin Fackler
Published: February 20, 2008
TAIJI, Japan: For years, Western activists have traveled to this remote port to protest the annual dolphin "drive." And for years, local fishermen have ignored them, herding the animals into a small cove and slashing them until the tide flows red. But now a new menace may succeed where activists have failed: mercury.
This town of 3,500 residents on a majestic, rocky stretch of coast is fiercely proud of its centuries-old tradition of hunting dolphins and whaling. Residents are used to the international scorn that accompanies the dolphin drive, almost as much an annual ritual as the drive itself, and have closed ranks in the face of rising outrage - until now.
Dolphin meat is a prized local delicacy, served raw as sashimi or boiled with soy sauce. But in June, laboratory tests showed high levels of mercury in dolphin and pilot whale, a small whale that resembles a dolphin, caught and sold here. At the urging of two town council members, schools promised to stop serving pilot whale for lunch, and some local supermarkets removed it and dolphin from their shelves.
Rather than embrace the changes, this tight-knit community has been divided, with most local officials and the fishermen's union insisting that the mercury threat is being overblown, while a minority here has begun to question a tradition.
"We are not against whaling," including the dolphin hunts, said Junichiro Yamashita, one of the council members, who paid for the mercury tests himself after the town refused to pay. "This is a small town,
The problems are not limited to Taiji. Japan is one of the world's largest consumers of whales and dolphins, yet the Health and Agriculture ministries, as well as the media, have said little about the growing mercury levels in whale and dolphin meat.
Indeed, the whaling industry seems to enjoy a protected status here, mainly as a symbol of tradition, defended against foreign interference.
"There is a real danger in whale and dolphin meat, but word is not getting out," said Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido and an expert on mercury in sea animals.
Japan kills 1,000 minke and other great whales every year in controversial research whaling off the coast of Antarctica and in the northern Pacific. Japan calls the hunt "research" in order to avoid an international ban on commercial whaling, but then sells the meat to supermarkets. One hundred more whales and 21,000 dolphins are killed annually in coastal waters, according to Japan's Fisheries Agency.
Still, the meat is hardly a vital food source: only a minority of Japanese eat whale, and dolphin is even less common, consumed in a handful of rural areas and regional cities like Osaka.
Taiji is the best known source of dolphin meat, partly because it kills the most animals, about 2,000 annually, in a season that runs from September to April. In Taiji, fishermen use a method called oikomi, or "the drive," in which they bang on metal poles to create a wall of sound that pushes panicked dolphin and pilot whales into a cove for killing.
Gruesome photos of the blood-filled cove, and protests by mostly Western environmental groups, seem to have only strengthened the town's resolve to hold fast to its customs. According to the town's whaling museum, the people of Taiji have hunted coastal whales for 400 years. With few other sources of livelihood, whaling is a mainstay of the local economy.
"We are a whaling community, and we don't want to lose that," said Katsutoshi Mihara, chairman of Taiji's town council. "Here, all boys grew up dreaming of hunting whales." (The Japanese word for whaling, hogei, also encompasses hunting dolphins.)
The mayor and most town leaders point to a Health Ministry report that said the meats are safe in moderation.
Strong proponents of whaling like Mihara say they fear that the mercury scare may damage the popularity of dolphin meat, which accounts for about a third of the town's $3 million fishing industry, according to the fishermen's association. Dolphin also fetches higher prices than other locally caught seafood: in a Taiji supermarket, a pound, or about half a kilogram, of frozen dolphin meat recently sold for about ¥1,500, or $14, roughly the price of sashimi-grade tuna.
Taiji's mercury debate comes amid rising worldwide concern over mercury in other, more globally accepted types of seafood, particularly tuna. Like tuna, dolphins and small whales are predators that appear to be accumulating mercury as they feed on fish in the world's increasingly contaminated oceans.
In fact, dolphins can build up far more mercury than tuna because dolphins live to about 40 years, versus a decade for large tuna species, said Endo, of the University of Hokkaido.
When consumed by humans over an extended period, mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and death. In fact, the world's worst case of mercury poisoning occurred in Japan in the 1950s, when thousands were killed, made ill or crippled in the city of Minamata from mercury dumped into the sea as industrial waste.
Endo participated in the studies that first brought mercury risks in dolphin to light. Since 2000, he has tested hundreds of samples of dolphin and whale meat around the country. In dolphin and pilot whale, he has typically found mercury levels ranging from 10 to 100 parts per million, far above the Japanese government's advisory level of 0.4 parts per million.
The most contaminated sample he ever found was from the internal organs of a pilot whale sold in a Taiji supermarket - 2,000 parts per million.
Despite the extreme sensitivity to mercury poisoning in Japan because of the Minamata case, the Health and Agriculture ministries have done little to inform the public about mercury in whale and dolphin meat, say Endo and other biologists. While the Health Ministry has done its own surveys of dolphin and pilot whale that show mercury levels of 10 to 50 times the advisory level, the only warning it has issued is for pregnant women.
Ministry officials say broader warnings are not needed because the higher levels are not a health risk for most people if they eat the meat infrequently, giving the body time to discharge the mercury. But critics accuse the government and media of ignoring the mercury issue, including the dispute in Taiji.
The same wall of silence exists in Taiji, many residents said. Yamashita and the other council member who raised the mercury issue, Hisato Ryono, said local newspapers had not written about their warnings, and city hall has said little in public about mercury.
To get word out, the two paid to have 1,900 fliers printed and sent to locals.
Several residents said they were shocked and alarmed when they read the fliers last summer. They also said they were angry at the town government's failure to address the concerns over mercury, adding that they no longer ate dolphin meat.
The residents refused to give their names for fear of being ostracized by their neighbors. "The flier is all I know about the mercury issue," said one 42-year-old woman, who said she was worried because her third-grade child had eaten pilot whale meat at school.
Older residents dismissed the mercury fears, saying they had eaten dolphin all their lives without ill effect.
Such generational differences may be what finally ends the dolphin hunt. Most of those under 40 no longer eat the meat, according to many residents.
"We're not saying that consumption of dolphin should disappear, but I think it's inevitable that it will," said Ryono, the council member. "As the older generation disappears, so will demand for dolphin meat."
Friday, February 15, 2008
Yellowstone Bison Still Victims of Ignorance – Even Calves (babies) Sent to Slaughter
This story really points out the true reality of Bison in Yellowstone. For one, anytime they even slightly stray from the artificial boundaries they have to face, they are harassed. Two, the only solution the government ever comes up with is slaughter. Sadly, this happened again, and will include putting 17 calves (babies) to slaughter.
As stated below, “…under a controversial program to limit contact between bison and cattle, state and park officials were sending another batch of 40 captured bison, including 17 calves, to a slaughterhouse, in a move further inflaming the passions of animal rights campaigners.”
Article:
Yellowstone’s Departed: Bison Calves Head to Slaughter, a Long-Lost Hare
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/a-vanishing-from-yellowstone-and-bison-calves-head-to-slaughter/
By Andrew C. Revkin
A biologist proposes reintroducing the long-vanished white-tailed jack rabbit to Yellowstone National Park. (Credit: Joel Berger, WCS)So-called wildlife is ever less wild these days, it seems, and ever more managed, something like props on a stage. Here’s a brief update on the comings and goings of some mammals in Yellowstone National Park, where a new study finds there was a mysterious vanishing long ago of the white-tailed jack rabbit, not only from the sprawling park but the greater Yellowstone ecosystem all around. Some biologists seek its reintroduction. In the meantime, the park’s expanding herd of bison is finding itself in harm’s way once again.
First, the rabbits. Joel Berger, a University of Montana researcher and biologist for the Wildlife Conservation Society (who was just interviewed in Science Times), scoured records back into the 1800’s and found that the jack rabbit was abundant 130 years ago, yet no one has seen one since 1991 in Yellowstone, with only three spotted in the adjacent Grand Teton National Park since 1978.
The disappearance, cause unknown, may mean the ecosystem that is considered the norm in Yellowstone may not, in fact, reflect its historical biological patterns. This species gap could, for instance, explain why coyotes there have been hunting and killing young elk and pronghorn antelope more than is typical, according to Dr. Berger, who reported his findings in the journal Oryx. His paper suggests that wildlife managers consider reintroducing the jack rabbits into the two parks. “Reintroduction may result in the establishment of dynamic ecological processes that were intact before rabbits vanished from the ecosystem,” Dr. Berger said.
My guess is that reintroduction might go a tad easier than others attempted in and around Yellowstone, most notable that of the gray wolf, which I blogged on here recently when neighboring states were given expanded latitude to allow hunters to kill the predators.
It’s a strange reality of these times that parks, which even at the vast scale of Yellowstone are islands, have to be managed. Species are added or culled to suit the limited real estate, satisfy our longing for restoring some pre-modern ecological norm, or sometimes — as in the case of wolves and bison — to accommodate the interests of neighbors, like Montana’s ranchers.
Bison are hemmed in and increasingly wander off park property, particularly in winter. They’ve been harassed by helicopter to drive them back (see the video on YouTube below, posted with permission). But more and more are being sent to slaughter, as well.
On Thursday, under a controversial program to limit contact between bison and cattle, state and park officials were sending another batch of 40 captured bison, including 17 calves, to a slaughterhouse, in a move further inflaming the passions of animal rights campaigners.
As the Billings Gazette reported, the calves had initially been slated to go to a quarantined research facility, but federal officials couldn’t finish negotiations over a necessary land lease.
The roundups of bison — hundreds per year lately — have been done ostensibly to limit chances that a livestock disease, brucellosis, can move from the bison to cattle. (It is somewhat ironic to some opponents of the bison killings that the disease originated in domesticated livestock, and no transmission from wild bison to cattle has been documented. More on these questions is in a pdf here.)
The practice has inflamed passions between ranchers and animal-rights campaigners led by the Buffalo Field Campaign, which today kicked off a week of protests.
As stated below, “…under a controversial program to limit contact between bison and cattle, state and park officials were sending another batch of 40 captured bison, including 17 calves, to a slaughterhouse, in a move further inflaming the passions of animal rights campaigners.”
Article:
Yellowstone’s Departed: Bison Calves Head to Slaughter, a Long-Lost Hare
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/a-vanishing-from-yellowstone-and-bison-calves-head-to-slaughter/
By Andrew C. Revkin
A biologist proposes reintroducing the long-vanished white-tailed jack rabbit to Yellowstone National Park. (Credit: Joel Berger, WCS)So-called wildlife is ever less wild these days, it seems, and ever more managed, something like props on a stage. Here’s a brief update on the comings and goings of some mammals in Yellowstone National Park, where a new study finds there was a mysterious vanishing long ago of the white-tailed jack rabbit, not only from the sprawling park but the greater Yellowstone ecosystem all around. Some biologists seek its reintroduction. In the meantime, the park’s expanding herd of bison is finding itself in harm’s way once again.
First, the rabbits. Joel Berger, a University of Montana researcher and biologist for the Wildlife Conservation Society (who was just interviewed in Science Times), scoured records back into the 1800’s and found that the jack rabbit was abundant 130 years ago, yet no one has seen one since 1991 in Yellowstone, with only three spotted in the adjacent Grand Teton National Park since 1978.
The disappearance, cause unknown, may mean the ecosystem that is considered the norm in Yellowstone may not, in fact, reflect its historical biological patterns. This species gap could, for instance, explain why coyotes there have been hunting and killing young elk and pronghorn antelope more than is typical, according to Dr. Berger, who reported his findings in the journal Oryx. His paper suggests that wildlife managers consider reintroducing the jack rabbits into the two parks. “Reintroduction may result in the establishment of dynamic ecological processes that were intact before rabbits vanished from the ecosystem,” Dr. Berger said.
My guess is that reintroduction might go a tad easier than others attempted in and around Yellowstone, most notable that of the gray wolf, which I blogged on here recently when neighboring states were given expanded latitude to allow hunters to kill the predators.
It’s a strange reality of these times that parks, which even at the vast scale of Yellowstone are islands, have to be managed. Species are added or culled to suit the limited real estate, satisfy our longing for restoring some pre-modern ecological norm, or sometimes — as in the case of wolves and bison — to accommodate the interests of neighbors, like Montana’s ranchers.
Bison are hemmed in and increasingly wander off park property, particularly in winter. They’ve been harassed by helicopter to drive them back (see the video on YouTube below, posted with permission). But more and more are being sent to slaughter, as well.
On Thursday, under a controversial program to limit contact between bison and cattle, state and park officials were sending another batch of 40 captured bison, including 17 calves, to a slaughterhouse, in a move further inflaming the passions of animal rights campaigners.
As the Billings Gazette reported, the calves had initially been slated to go to a quarantined research facility, but federal officials couldn’t finish negotiations over a necessary land lease.
The roundups of bison — hundreds per year lately — have been done ostensibly to limit chances that a livestock disease, brucellosis, can move from the bison to cattle. (It is somewhat ironic to some opponents of the bison killings that the disease originated in domesticated livestock, and no transmission from wild bison to cattle has been documented. More on these questions is in a pdf here.)
The practice has inflamed passions between ranchers and animal-rights campaigners led by the Buffalo Field Campaign, which today kicked off a week of protests.
Regulators Make Some Moves Toward Non-Animal Chemical Testing Methods: Alternatives to Using Animals in Testing
We’ll see if this comes through, but good signs. If this does occur, a reduction in the number of animals used in chemical testing will be decreased.
Alternatives have been around for years. We have an entire page on alternatives to animal testing at http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html
As stated below, “The screening machines will be inspired by those developed for medical research, which can quickly test thousands of different molecules in a few days to see if any have potential as useful drugs.
Instead of using animals such as rats and mice, scientists will screen suspected toxic chemicals in everything from pesticides to household cleaners using cell cultures and computer models.”
Article:
US to replace animals with robots in toxic chemical tests
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/15/animalwelfare
Alok Jha The Guardian, Friday February 15 2008
US regulators have announced plans to reduce the number of animals used to test the safety of everyday chemicals.
Instead of using animals such as rats and mice, scientists will screen suspected toxic chemicals in everything from pesticides to household cleaners using cell cultures and computer models.
According to the Home Office, more than 3.1m experiments in the UK were carried out on animals in 2006. Of these more than 420,000 were done to test the safety of chemicals. According to the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), more than 100 million animals are used annually in experiments in the US, of which 15 million are used in toxicity tests.
The plans to replace animals in the US, announced yesterday in Boston, will see researchers from the national institute of health and the environmental protection agency develop robotic machines to screen the chemicals. They said if successful the robots could test a greater number of chemicals more quickly.
The results of the research could have implications for the EU's Reach legislation, which requires retesting all synthetic chemicals used in member countries. Critics are worried that the new rules will increase the number of animals used.
The screening machines will be inspired by those developed for medical research, which can quickly test thousands of different molecules in a few days to see if any have potential as useful drugs. "We now are seeing tools newly available to us for chemical genomics research deployed for greater refinement, speed and capacity in chemical toxicity screening," said Francis Collins, director of the national human genome research institute and author of a paper, published today in Science, describing the proposed techniques.
Catherine Willett, science policy adviser at Peta, said: "This is a significant change in the perspective of US agencies, which have historically relied heavily on animal testing out of habit and have been resistant to change."
Alternatives have been around for years. We have an entire page on alternatives to animal testing at http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html
As stated below, “The screening machines will be inspired by those developed for medical research, which can quickly test thousands of different molecules in a few days to see if any have potential as useful drugs.
Instead of using animals such as rats and mice, scientists will screen suspected toxic chemicals in everything from pesticides to household cleaners using cell cultures and computer models.”
Article:
US to replace animals with robots in toxic chemical tests
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/15/animalwelfare
Alok Jha The Guardian, Friday February 15 2008
US regulators have announced plans to reduce the number of animals used to test the safety of everyday chemicals.
Instead of using animals such as rats and mice, scientists will screen suspected toxic chemicals in everything from pesticides to household cleaners using cell cultures and computer models.
According to the Home Office, more than 3.1m experiments in the UK were carried out on animals in 2006. Of these more than 420,000 were done to test the safety of chemicals. According to the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), more than 100 million animals are used annually in experiments in the US, of which 15 million are used in toxicity tests.
The plans to replace animals in the US, announced yesterday in Boston, will see researchers from the national institute of health and the environmental protection agency develop robotic machines to screen the chemicals. They said if successful the robots could test a greater number of chemicals more quickly.
The results of the research could have implications for the EU's Reach legislation, which requires retesting all synthetic chemicals used in member countries. Critics are worried that the new rules will increase the number of animals used.
The screening machines will be inspired by those developed for medical research, which can quickly test thousands of different molecules in a few days to see if any have potential as useful drugs. "We now are seeing tools newly available to us for chemical genomics research deployed for greater refinement, speed and capacity in chemical toxicity screening," said Francis Collins, director of the national human genome research institute and author of a paper, published today in Science, describing the proposed techniques.
Catherine Willett, science policy adviser at Peta, said: "This is a significant change in the perspective of US agencies, which have historically relied heavily on animal testing out of habit and have been resistant to change."
Group Raises Awareness to Cruelty of Long-Distance Livestock Hauling: Furniture Treated Better than Transported Animals
I think the second part of the title says it all – that furniture is actually treated better than animals transported.
As stated below, “On one route, about 15,000 pigs are stuffed into containers each year, then trucked from Lethbridge, Alta., to California before being shipped to Hawaii. According to the CP report, the group says the animals are exposed to extreme temperature changes, are deprived of food, water and rest for long stretches of time. Many of the animals die before reaching their destination, the coalition says. “
Hopefully changes will come from this, but we’ll see.
Article:
Animal rights group fights long-distance livestock hauling
http://www.todaystrucking.com/
news.cfm?intDocID=19106
02/14/2008
TORONTO -- An animal rights group says hauled furniture hauled is treated "with more respect" than animals transported in containers over long distances.
In a global campaign launched this week, the World Society for the Protection of Animals says pigs and other farm animals are being "brutalized" by "cruel and unnecessary" transport methods, reports Canadian Press.
An animal rights group is squealing about the treatment
of animals during transport to slaughterhouses.
"The suffering that these animals must go through is quite appalling," Melissa Tkachyk, programs officer with WSPA Canada told CP.
A year-long investigation by the group, dubbed Handle With Care, aims to expose the harsh conditions animals are subjected to during their long journeys to slaughterhouses.
Canadian carriers, claims the group, are some of the worst culprits.
On one route, about 15,000 pigs are stuffed into containers each year, then trucked from Lethbridge, Alta., to California before being shipped to Hawaii. According to the CP report, the group says the animals are exposed to extreme temperature changes, are deprived of food, water and rest for long stretches of time. Many of the animals die before reaching their destination, the coalition says.
Shipping live animals vast distances makes little sense, the groups argue. Instead, livestock should be raised and slaughtered locally, then shipped as frozen meat.
Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz told CP that the government is proposing changes that would ban the export of live animals if transportation conditions anywhere along the route fail to meet Canadian standards.
As stated below, “On one route, about 15,000 pigs are stuffed into containers each year, then trucked from Lethbridge, Alta., to California before being shipped to Hawaii. According to the CP report, the group says the animals are exposed to extreme temperature changes, are deprived of food, water and rest for long stretches of time. Many of the animals die before reaching their destination, the coalition says. “
Hopefully changes will come from this, but we’ll see.
Article:
Animal rights group fights long-distance livestock hauling
http://www.todaystrucking.com/
news.cfm?intDocID=19106
02/14/2008
TORONTO -- An animal rights group says hauled furniture hauled is treated "with more respect" than animals transported in containers over long distances.
In a global campaign launched this week, the World Society for the Protection of Animals says pigs and other farm animals are being "brutalized" by "cruel and unnecessary" transport methods, reports Canadian Press.
An animal rights group is squealing about the treatment
of animals during transport to slaughterhouses.
"The suffering that these animals must go through is quite appalling," Melissa Tkachyk, programs officer with WSPA Canada told CP.
A year-long investigation by the group, dubbed Handle With Care, aims to expose the harsh conditions animals are subjected to during their long journeys to slaughterhouses.
Canadian carriers, claims the group, are some of the worst culprits.
On one route, about 15,000 pigs are stuffed into containers each year, then trucked from Lethbridge, Alta., to California before being shipped to Hawaii. According to the CP report, the group says the animals are exposed to extreme temperature changes, are deprived of food, water and rest for long stretches of time. Many of the animals die before reaching their destination, the coalition says.
Shipping live animals vast distances makes little sense, the groups argue. Instead, livestock should be raised and slaughtered locally, then shipped as frozen meat.
Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz told CP that the government is proposing changes that would ban the export of live animals if transportation conditions anywhere along the route fail to meet Canadian standards.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Macaque Monkey Boiled To Death Inside an Everett, WA Research Facility of SNBL: As Usual, Laws Prevent Group From Being Held Legally Accountable
Very disturbing story. What this once again proves, is that any type of laboratory can do whatever it wants to any animal and it’s considered science. However, if an individual outside of a lab did these kind of acts, they’d be held under cruelty charges. See the hypocrisy here?
As stated below,
"According to RCW 16.52.205, a person can be guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree if they cause "undue suffering" or "unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal." However, the law also states when animal death and suffering is connected "with any properly conducted scientific experiments" it’s legal."
Article:
Do Animal Cruelty Laws Apply In Boiled Monkey Case?
http://www.kirotv.com/news/15216083/detail.html
Chris Halsne
KIRO 7 Eyewitness News Investigative Reporter
EVERETT, Wash. -- Calls for action continue to pour in following a KIRO Team 7 Investigation into the scalding death of a monkey inside an Everett research facility.
We discovered that a cleaning crew at SNBL left a healthy female macaque monkey in her cage, killing it by running it through a steaming hot rack washer.
The US Department of Agriculture tells KIRO that it is looking into possible Animal Welfare Act violation, but other groups are telling Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne they want criminal prosecution as well.
The National Humane Society of the United States and a Washington state-based animal rights group called Pasado's Safe Haven tell Halsne they think jail time is warranted for SNBL workers connected to the death of that monkey.
But KIRO Team 7 Investigators have discovered there are limits to Washington's felony animal cruelty statute that might make that a tough-to-win prosecution.
“There is absolutely no reason to be doing this to animals!” says Susan Michaels, who helped push through Washington's felony animal cruelty law.
She says it’s sad to say, but she’s not sure it will stop anyone from legally boiling another monkey to death at any research lab.
According to RCW 16.52.205, a person can be guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree if they cause "undue suffering" or "unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal." However, the law also states when animal death and suffering is connected "with any properly conducted scientific experiments" it’s legal.
Michaels tells KIRO Team 7 Investigators, “I don't even know how to put into words the kind of reaction I have, except to know that I am so grateful to KIRO that you got behind the scenes for something like this. Because according to our state law, it OK for those who experiment on animals, for them to do whatever they want to do them and there's nothing in our animal cruelty laws to stop it.”
KIRO Team 7 Investigators spoke with several attorneys representing animal rights groups who say they'd like to see prosecution anyway, arguing that the boiled monkey was "at" the lab, but not part of any experiment.
Our hidden camera expose found other problems at SNBL that might alert prosecutors as well. In an exclusive interview with us, former animal care manager Joanie McCully reported to federal inspectors animal handlers spraying acid on monkeys and intentionally dropping them on their heads.
“If the monkeys aren't cooperative, they shut them up, then they drop them on their floor on their head and spin the cage. You can see that's going on by all the dents in the floor.”
Paul Nofsinger is another former SNBL animal caretaker. He watched our investigation, thinking “I was shocked and appalled and at the same time. I thought finally!”
Nofsinger says a 2006 U.S. Department of Agriculture report, citing SNBL for poor recordkeeping, really struck a nerve. He says SNBL managers asked him repeatedly to "fill-in" animal care logbooks and documents.
“How do you get it done? You write it that it was fed or it was clean when it really wasn't. It was very common, common and sickening and nothing we could do about it if we wanted to keep our jobs,” Nofsinger said.
Primate injuries and deaths inside labs are no surprise to Jill Lute and her staff. She oversees the Folsom City, Calif. Zoo and Animal Sanctuary, where they rescue research primates from certain death, while educating the public on the importance of "enrichment" programs for captive monkeys.
Lute told us “Even though they might have to be in a research study and ultimately lose their life because of it, they should still have the decency to respect and care about them and do everything in their power to make sure the quality of life is good. They (SNBL workers) are being paid to be there to take care of those animals. They should take it very seriously.”
Lute gave names to these two research lab rescues - Wallace and Darwin.
That's something employees of SNBL say is forbidden inside here. Monkeys are only to be called by their drug-study ID numbers , so employees don't get too attached.
SNBL refuses to conduct an on-camera interview with KIRO Team 7 Investigators, but in an e-mail says it has been told that federal inspectors aren't going to issue the company a violation for the rack-washer death.
However, a spokesperson for the USDA tells Halsne there is an active and ongoing investigation.
As stated below,
"According to RCW 16.52.205, a person can be guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree if they cause "undue suffering" or "unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal." However, the law also states when animal death and suffering is connected "with any properly conducted scientific experiments" it’s legal."
Article:
Do Animal Cruelty Laws Apply In Boiled Monkey Case?
http://www.kirotv.com/news/15216083/detail.html
Chris Halsne
KIRO 7 Eyewitness News Investigative Reporter
EVERETT, Wash. -- Calls for action continue to pour in following a KIRO Team 7 Investigation into the scalding death of a monkey inside an Everett research facility.
We discovered that a cleaning crew at SNBL left a healthy female macaque monkey in her cage, killing it by running it through a steaming hot rack washer.
The US Department of Agriculture tells KIRO that it is looking into possible Animal Welfare Act violation, but other groups are telling Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne they want criminal prosecution as well.
The National Humane Society of the United States and a Washington state-based animal rights group called Pasado's Safe Haven tell Halsne they think jail time is warranted for SNBL workers connected to the death of that monkey.
But KIRO Team 7 Investigators have discovered there are limits to Washington's felony animal cruelty statute that might make that a tough-to-win prosecution.
“There is absolutely no reason to be doing this to animals!” says Susan Michaels, who helped push through Washington's felony animal cruelty law.
She says it’s sad to say, but she’s not sure it will stop anyone from legally boiling another monkey to death at any research lab.
According to RCW 16.52.205, a person can be guilty of animal cruelty in the first degree if they cause "undue suffering" or "unnecessary pain, injury, or death on an animal." However, the law also states when animal death and suffering is connected "with any properly conducted scientific experiments" it’s legal.
Michaels tells KIRO Team 7 Investigators, “I don't even know how to put into words the kind of reaction I have, except to know that I am so grateful to KIRO that you got behind the scenes for something like this. Because according to our state law, it OK for those who experiment on animals, for them to do whatever they want to do them and there's nothing in our animal cruelty laws to stop it.”
KIRO Team 7 Investigators spoke with several attorneys representing animal rights groups who say they'd like to see prosecution anyway, arguing that the boiled monkey was "at" the lab, but not part of any experiment.
Our hidden camera expose found other problems at SNBL that might alert prosecutors as well. In an exclusive interview with us, former animal care manager Joanie McCully reported to federal inspectors animal handlers spraying acid on monkeys and intentionally dropping them on their heads.
“If the monkeys aren't cooperative, they shut them up, then they drop them on their floor on their head and spin the cage. You can see that's going on by all the dents in the floor.”
Paul Nofsinger is another former SNBL animal caretaker. He watched our investigation, thinking “I was shocked and appalled and at the same time. I thought finally!”
Nofsinger says a 2006 U.S. Department of Agriculture report, citing SNBL for poor recordkeeping, really struck a nerve. He says SNBL managers asked him repeatedly to "fill-in" animal care logbooks and documents.
“How do you get it done? You write it that it was fed or it was clean when it really wasn't. It was very common, common and sickening and nothing we could do about it if we wanted to keep our jobs,” Nofsinger said.
Primate injuries and deaths inside labs are no surprise to Jill Lute and her staff. She oversees the Folsom City, Calif. Zoo and Animal Sanctuary, where they rescue research primates from certain death, while educating the public on the importance of "enrichment" programs for captive monkeys.
Lute told us “Even though they might have to be in a research study and ultimately lose their life because of it, they should still have the decency to respect and care about them and do everything in their power to make sure the quality of life is good. They (SNBL workers) are being paid to be there to take care of those animals. They should take it very seriously.”
Lute gave names to these two research lab rescues - Wallace and Darwin.
That's something employees of SNBL say is forbidden inside here. Monkeys are only to be called by their drug-study ID numbers , so employees don't get too attached.
SNBL refuses to conduct an on-camera interview with KIRO Team 7 Investigators, but in an e-mail says it has been told that federal inspectors aren't going to issue the company a violation for the rack-washer death.
However, a spokesperson for the USDA tells Halsne there is an active and ongoing investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search for More Content
Custom Search
