Study by the National Institute of Nutrition in India Shows the Majority of Those in India Are Not Vegetarian

Depressing, but the truth. And that’s what we aim to do here: report the truth, no matter how sad it is. This is particularly disturbing as it really is true that especially in the US, many people think if you’re Indian, you’re vegetarian. Well, not so.

Article:

Is a majority of India non-veg?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2206781.cms

INDIATIMES NEWS NETWORK

India is a land of vegetarians, right? Wrong, says a recent study by the National Institute of Nutrition. A majority 64% of Indian households are meat-eaters. The South, at 92.2%, more than the North, at 40.4%, another surprise.

The study on "Knowledge, attitude, beliefs, practices study on food and drug safety in India", covered over 20,000 households in 82 districts in 28 states.

Do you think the NIN got it right? Or is it too small a sample to be an accurate representation of over a billion people. Is India largely vegetarian or non-vegetarian?

After Losing Suit Oregon Health & Science University Agrees To Release More Than 113,000 Pages of Animal Care Records To In Defense of Animals

Of course, much is blacked out. So, they had literally years to do that while under litigation. Suits like this are necessary, as enforcement of animal care laws are nil. Here is a quote from the story below that discusses this:

“Laura Ireland Moore, executive director of the National Center for Animal Law at Lewis & Clark Law School, said legal protection for animals has improved over the years but enforcement remains a problem.

"Most of the laws are not adequate and even the ones we do have are certainly not adequately enforced," Moore said.”

Article:

OHSU to release records to animal rights group

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/
index.ssf?/base/news-16/1161125979156960.xml&storylist=orlocal

10/17/2006, 3:45 p.m. PT

By WILLIAM McCALL
The Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — After a five-year court battle, Oregon Health & Science University has agreed to release more than 113,000 pages of animal care records to In Defense of Animals, officials said Tuesday.

The legal dispute over records on the treatment of monkeys at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, which is managed by OHSU, began with a lawsuit filed in 2001.

Last year, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that an OHSU plan to charge more than $150,000 to provide the records was excessive, resulting in the agreement announced Tuesday, according to the group and OHSU.


The agreement was welcomed by the animal rights group, which said the battle began eight years ago with a request for the records.

"Had OHSU been willing to do in 1998 what it has agreed to today, years of litigation could have been avoided," said David Bahr, attorney for In Defense of Animals.

But the university said it had to move carefully to redact — black out — names of researchers in order to avoid potential threats by animal rights extremists, officials said.

Matt Rossell, Northwest spokesman for In Defense of Animals, said IDA never challenged the effort to protect researchers, and accused OHSU of using it as an excuse to delay the release of the records.

"What I've found in my work challenging animal research is that is their standard response to anything because they want to distract the public about any concerns they might have about the legitimacy of the research or the condition of the animals," Rossell said.

He said the university had insisted it would require a researcher to go through every page of the documents to black out names when those names could have been listed and eliminated by a computer program.

"We're glad they have finally released the documents," Rossell said, "but the public has been kept in the dark for a really long time."

He said the animal rights group expects the documents to show some animals have been mistreated.

OHSU officials, however, said the documents confirm what they have said all along — the university and the primate center meet all federal laws and regulations.

They also accused Rossell, who worked briefly at the primate center from 1998 to 2000, of being a "spy" for animal rights activists.

"While we support IDA's right to obtain public records, we also think the public has the right to a non-biased, truthful portrayal of their contents," said Susan Smith, director of the OHSU primate center.

Laura Ireland Moore, executive director of the National Center for Animal Law at Lewis & Clark Law School, said legal protection for animals has improved over the years but enforcement remains a problem.

"Most of the laws are not adequate and even the ones we do have are certainly not adequately enforced," Moore said.

Austin Group Seeks City Ordinance Targeting Circus Acts Like Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus

Here's what they want. I’d say it’s fully reasonable: to ban any circus if it has violated the Federal Animal Welfare Act within the past five years, force circuses to provide specific sizes for an outdoor-holding area and climate controlled indoor areas for elephants and prohibit all circuses from using a device or technique that causes pain or injury to an elephant.

Seeing that the cruelty of Ringling Brothers is WELL documented, this request holds water. More about the cruelty of Ringling Brothers can be found here:

http://www.circuses.com/

http://www.cok.net/camp/ringling/

The following quote is listed below, but it’s another factor that is always considered in this issue. It’s absolutely true: "If parents and children knew that this is what went into training elephants for the circus, you would have to drag them kicking and screaming to the circus, because children love animals. And they don't want to see elephants suffering like this."

Article:

Animal Rights Groups Calling For City Ordinance

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=5547322&nav=0s3d

Oct 17, 2006 09:09 AM

They call themselves "The Greatest Show on Earth." Two animal welfare groups say Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey circus is the cruelest show on Earth.

Monday, the Austin-based Action For Animals proposed a new city ordinance specifically targeting circus acts. Here's what they want: to ban any circus if it has violated the Federal Animal Welfare Act within the past five years, force circuses to provide specific sizes for an outdoor-holding area and climate controlled indoor areas for elephants and prohibit all circuses from using a device or technique that causes pain or injury to an elephant.

To back up their argument, Action for Animals, along with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, released video tape Monday of an incident in Austin last July.

KXAN NBC Austin's Jim Swift has more on this story.

(The following is a transcript of Swift's story.)

In the video, the handler repeatedly calls out to the elephant by name. "Tonka, here" he appears to says. The animal cries out, but what is it saying?

Animal rights activists think they know.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals spokesperson RaeLeann Smith says: "An elephant's ability to feel pain, as well as sorrow, joy and happiness, rivals our own."

The activists say they shot the video on July 2 as elephants from Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus were being returned to railroad boxcars.

They say when a handler used a guide known as a bullhook on Tonka, he opened a bloody wound on the rear side of her ear.

Action for Animals spokesperson Ernest Samudio says: "Action for Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is calling for the Travis County District Attorney's office to prosecute Alex Vargas, the animal handler video taped using a bullhook to injury Tonka."

Tom Albert, the vice-president of the company that owns the circus, called that, "ridiculous." He vowed to fight the proposed ordinance at city council.

Meanwhile, the Erwin Center, where the circus is staged every year, sent a representative to the news conference Monday morning. She was asked to leave.

Samudio says: "She wasn't invited, OK. And if she wants to discuss her issue, opposing point of view, she needs to have her own press conference."

Later, the Erwin Center representative asked for an opportunity to provide the facility's side of the story.

When we offered that opportunity, however, she said her superiors had changed their minds and that there would be no comment, after all. The activists, though, had one last thing to say.

Smith says: "If parents and children knew that this is what went into training elephants for the circus, you would have to drag them kicking and screaming to the circus, because children love animals. And they don't want to see elephants suffering like this."

So what's next? Well, apparently not much.

Police say their investigation is closed. They found no evidence of a crime.

The Travis County District Attorney's office says it has no record of receiving a letter from either organization.

As far as the proposed ordinance goes, city council members KXAN spoke to say they have no plans to pursue it in the near future.

Group Sues Maine Over Failing to Protect Bald Eagles: Eagles Ending Up Dead in Traps

You’ll see rhetoric from the fur people and of course their buddies in the government. But what is important to keep in view is that these eagles were killed. Plain and simple. And that is illegal. Whining from the other side will not change the facts.

Article:

Animal rights group sues state over trapping

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/
061014trapping.html

BANGOR - An animal rights group is suing Maine for allegedly failing to protect bald eagles and Canada lynx from being inadvertently caught in traps.

The lawsuit brought Thursday by the California-based Animal Protection Institute seeks to end trapping that could inadvertently capture, injure or kill eagles, lynx and gray wolves, all of which are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Camilla Fox, director of wildlife programs for the Animal Protection Institute, said her group couldn't reach a satisfactory resolution with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife after issuing a warning last spring that it planned to sue.
"The ball is essentially in (the state agency's) court to implement any regulatory changes to protect endangered species in the state," she said.

Inland Fisheries Commissioner Roland "Danny" Martin is named as defendant in the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court. The group is suing on behalf of the group's roughly 250 members in Maine, Fox said.

The group contends that at least 21 lynx have been inadvertently trapped in Maine since 2001. Most of the lynx were released alive, but at least two of the five lynx found in traps in 2005 died. One bald eagle was caught in traps in 2001 and in 2002. Both birds either died of their wounds or had to be euthanized.

There have been no reports of gray wolves being trapped in Maine in recent years. State wildlife officials say there are no breeding pairs in Maine.

Maine has about 2,500 registered trappers who seek out fur-bearing animals such as beaver, fox, otter and weasel. But the number of lynx, eagles or other protected species caught in the traps is "very minimal," said Mark Latti of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

If successful, the lawsuit could end some or all trapping in much of Maine. Latti said that could create big problems.

"Basically, we would have unchecked populations of small, fur-bearing animals," Latti said. "People can see what kind of damage beavers can do with their numbers in check. Without trapping, their numbers would grow incredibly quick."

Animal protection groups used the Endangered Species Act to force the state to suspend its controversial coyote snaring program in 2003 after at least two eagles and one lynx were killed in snares.

Skip Trask, a representative for the Maine Trappers Association, called the lawsuit "frivolous" and said trapping poses no threat to lynx or eagle populations in the state.
"These animal rights groups don't have a clue of what is going on in Maine, and they obviously don't care," he said. "Their goal is to end all trapping and they think nothing of using the federal Endangered Species Act to achieve that goal."

Actress Bo Derek and Others Work the Slime of Washington to Attempt to Put an End to Horse Slaughter: Politics and Horse Meat 101

There are a few reasons why I posted this article:

One, it shows the nature of the political system and how access is granted – rich or famous.

Two, shows how a celebrity can use their name for good.

Three, it again brings up the issue of horse slaughter showing that this issue is very much still open.

Four, it shows that other celebrities are also working hard on this issue.

Lastly, it shows the unfortunate reality of the popularity of horse meat around the world.

I really respect her for going out and doing all that hard work. It must suck to have to shake hands with such slimy scum. She could very easily just go sit in her mansion. Instead, she’s gotten off her butt and is working on a very important issue.

Article:

Bo Derek's Washington Roundup
The Equine Activist Takes A Horsemeat Head Count

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2006/10/14/AR2006101400893.html

By Linton Weeks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 15, 2006; D01

For stallion tartare, mash together five ounces of minced USDA-inspected lean horsemeat with an egg yolk, Worcestershire sauce, salt and pepper. Flatten one side of the ball to position it on a plate. Pop some parsley, red onion and capers on top. Serve with tomato ketchup and olive oil. And, voila , that's one way they do it in Paris.

But if actress-turned-activist Bo Derek can turn enough heads -- and change enough minds -- the French won't be eating horsemeat imported from the United States anymore. Neither will the Belgians, the Italians, the Japanese or anyone else for that matter.

Derek has joined a stampede of celebrities -- including Willie Nelson, Whoopi Goldberg and Christie Brinkley -- and other hard-core horse lovers to try to shut down three European-owned horsemeat factories in the United States. Two are in Texas, one in Illinois.

Last month the House of Representatives passed the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, which prohibits the transportation and sale of horses for human consumption. A similar bill is being considered by the Senate, but it's unclear -- given all the other pressing issues -- whether the matter will come to a vote before Congress adjourns for the year.

The horsemeat issue boils down to a few irreconcilable differences. Opponents of the horsemeat ban say it's a property rights issue: Horse owners should be able to do whatever they want with their horses. They say the ban is not in the best interest of horse welfare because it will lead to the unregulated handling of unwanted horses. And, opponents say, it's a matter of cultural chauvinism: In this age of global upheaval, who is the United States to be telling anyone what they can or cannot eat?

Those in favor of the bill, united by the Washington-based Society for Animal Protective Legislation, argue that horses deserve a respectful death and burial. They decry the way horses are transported to, and handled in, the slaughterhouses. They say that the United States tells other countries what to do all the time -- why not on this issue. They also believe that horses should not be roasted, grilled, baked, battered, buttered, fried or tartared.

"This legislation doesn't stop a horse owner from shooting the animal and burying it in the back forty," says Derek, 49. She is eating a quick bowl of Honey Nut Cheerios in a Senate office building cafe before a second day of closed-door meetings with legislators. But, she adds, "as Americans, we don't eat our horses."

Known primarily for playing scantily clad characters in the decades-old movies "10" and "Tarzan, the Ape Man," Derek is wearing more concealing clothes today -- a black business suit, white top and heels. A pro-Bush Republican, she is aware that as a national sex symbol she receives special treatment. Even enemies of the bill want their pictures taken with her. With long blond hair and blue eyes, she is still, after all these years, attention-getting.

She pulls a congressional directory from her purse to check some notes, then returns to the conversation. Her first appointment this morning is with Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), one of the prime opponents of the anti-slaughter bill. Derek, flanked by three lobbyists, disappears into Burns's chambers in the Dirksen Building. Based on information from people -- on both sides of the issue -- who were at the meeting, Derek pauses for photos before getting down to business. In Burns's office, the senator tells her that the government shouldn't be telling people what to do with their horses and he says he is concerned about all the unwanted horses that will be dumped on the government's doorstep if the plants are closed.

Derek tells Burns that those concerns are a myth. Horse slaughter is not common in the United States. Last year there were about 90,000 horses slaughtered out of a population of some 9 million. If not bought by the slaughterhouses, she says, unwanted horses would be bought by someone who wants them for hunting or jumping or simply going out riding. More than 90 percent of the horses at auctions are in sound condition, she says.

Her next appointment is with Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who tells her that his father was a large-animal veterinarian. She poses for pictures in his office as well. As a result of the meeting, Martinez becomes a co-sponsor of the bill.

Between the two confabs she runs into Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) in the hallway. He stops to shake her hand. She doesn't make small talk; she asks him right off where he stands on the bill. He says he would like to leave it the way it is -- in consideration but not up for a vote.

A dissenting voice from one senator, she says, can keep a bill from reaching the floor for an up or down vote. "One man can stop it," she says later. "Which is a shame."

For Derek, whose 2002 autobiography is titled "Riding Lessons: Everything That Matters in Life I Learned From Horses," this is a very personal issue. She oversees a 130-acre spread in Santa Ynez, Calif. At one time she owned more than 30 horses; now she has six. There is a difference, she says, between horses and cows. "Cattle aren't wild anymore. We breed them to be docile. Horses are bred to be feisty, flighty and responsive to our affection."

The history of this country, she says, is intertwined with a national affection for, and dependence on, horses.

As one of her sidekick lobbyists puts it, "Nobody's riding a cow on statues in America."

Derek says, "I am not a member of any animal rights organization. I am a big red-meat eater. I live in cattle country. I rope; I brand." To Derek, this is all just about horses.

Same with Charles Stenholm, a lobbyist for the horsemeat industry, a cotton planter and a former Texas congressman. "We do contend it's a private property rights issue," says Stenholm in a telephone interview. "A horse owner should have the right to dispose of his horse as he sees fit."

He agrees with the anti-slaughterhouse side that "all animals should be treated humanely, from birth to death."

But, he adds, "with all due sincerity to the naivete of Bo Derek, it is a horse welfare issue. Somebody has got to take care of unwanted horses. There are just not enough people who want to adopt horses."

For Derek and other horse aficionados, Stenholm says, "it is emotional. It is so easy to say that every horse will find a willing owner." He says that is just not the way it is.

When a horse reaches the end of its life, Stenholm says, it can cost $200 to $2,000 to have it disposed of. He says that a horse owner should be offered the chance to sell his horse to a processing plant. The three plants in the United States export 26 million pounds of horsemeat annually.

Stenholm doesn't understand why horse lovers believe that it's okay to have a horse euthanized or composted but not sent to a meatpacking operation. He says that eating is just another form of composting.

People like Derek, he says, "believe that horses are special and should not be processed for human consumption."

He says that others see horses as no different from other animals, such as cows, pigs, turkeys or chickens. And they understand that "if you eat meat, something has to die."

The United States "ought to be real careful about determining what other people eat," he continues. "Some people don't eat meat. I'm for them. When we begin to make a judgment on food we get on very thin ice."

He adds, "This is a very emotional issue."

It certainly is for Anne Russek. A horse breeder in western Virginia, she is among the non-celebrity horse lovers who give a lot of time and money to keep horses from being slaughtered. Russek makes several trips a year to Washington to do volunteer work for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation.

She says she was brought in several years ago to help Derek get her feet wet on the issue. The two women met with congressional aides. Russek says that having Derek on the team has been "instrumental to moving the bill."

And Russek says that while she has been able to lobby her own congressman, "Bo Derek can get to anybody's congressman."

On a recent sunny afternoon, Russek is sitting at a table at the Pink Cadillac Diner that she and her husband Steve own just off Interstate 81 in Natural Bridge. It's a high-spirited joint with a sure-enough pink Cadillac out front and a greasy-spoon menu featuring bacon cheeseburgers and an $8.95 sauteed calf liver dinner.

Horses, Russek says, "are being slaughtered like cows. They're not cows. They are flight animals. They are smarter than cows." White hair, hazel eyes, features fashioned by the outdoors, Russek, 52, says she has adored horses since whenever. She and her husband live nearby on a 30-acre farm. They own 10 horses and a half-dozen dogs, most rescued from shelters.

She adds to Bo Derek's argument by raving against: a pharmaceutical company that makes a drug for menopausal women from an enzyme in the urine of mares; the too-small trailers used to carry horses to their deaths; "kill buyers" who go to auction houses and bid on animals to slaughter; and her congressman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who is chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and opposed the horse slaughter prevention bill.

Goodlatte's office confirms that he voted against the bill.

As for the cultural-differences aspect of the debate, says Russek, "I would prefer that Europeans not eat horsemeat, because I am a horsewoman."

The United States, she says, "does not have to provide the horsemeat for that culture."

The history of horsemeat goes back a ways. In his book "Strange Foods: Bush Meat, Bats, and Butterflies -- An Epicurean Adventure Around the World," Jerry Hopkins writes that prehistoric humans hunted and ate horses. Ancient folks may have first raised horses to be roasted rather than ridden. Old Testament law ordained that eating horse flesh was taboo. In the 5th century BC, Herodotus wrote of boiling horses to mix with oxen.

Today the Japanese eat horsemeat sashimi. In the Netherlands, horsemeat is considered a breakfast treat. Horsemeat is sold in some French butcher shops and is on the menu in some of the pricier restaurants.

Alain Sailhac, a master chef at the French Culinary Institute in New York, has a special fondness for horsemeat. He remembers during World War II that there was no beef in his southern French town of Millau, so his mother bought a few ounces of horsemeat and cooked it for his sister, who was anemic. "It smelled so good," he says. "It was very lean. Full of protein. No fat."

It tastes, he says, "a little bit like deer."

Back on Capitol Hill, Bo Derek is taking a lunch break. She says she once ordered horsemeat by accident in France and ate it, thinking it was a hamburger.

She and the lobbyists are going over their notes and deconstructing their morning meetings. Her nightmare is that the issue will get jostled aside by others and won't be taken up before the end of the year. Then, next year, she -- and Anne Russek and Willie Nelson and other horse lovers -- will have to make more trips to Washington to educate a whole new batch of lawmakers.

North Carolina Will Allow Bear Hunting In One of 10 Mountain Sanctuaries

How idiotic. As the last sentence of this article says (even though written by a hunter) “the problem of more humans encountering bears is less about the bears than about developers building more housing in the woods.”

Also, look at this statement – “The bear population has rebounded and is probably "thriving too well…” Ok, then I guess that means they immediately need to allow bears to be killed? Not sure why a population doing well should lead to hunting.

Article:

N.C. opening bear sanctuary to hunters

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061016/ap_on_re_us/bear_hunt_1

Mon Oct 16, 9:12 AM ET

BURNSVILLE, N.C. - State officials will allow bear hunting in one of 10 mountain sanctuaries for the first time since the areas were established in 1970.

The bear population has rebounded and is probably "thriving too well," leading to too much interaction between bears and humans, said Mark Jones, a wildlife biologist and the Black Bear Project leader for the Wildlife Resources Commission.

"To some extent, our program has been too effective, because we have too many bears in some areas," Jones said. "People can be resistant to change, but there's a need to take some bears off of some of these sanctuaries."

The state has 233,000 acres of official bear sanctuary lands in coastal areas and 262,000 acres in the mountains. Statewide, there are an estimated 11,000 bears, Jones said.

Bear hunting season opened in western North Carolina on Monday. Hunting in the Mount Mitchell Bear Sanctuary in Yancey County starts Thursday and will be allowed Thursdays through Saturdays during eight weeks this year.

Some local residents oppose lifting the ban.

Phil Sparks, a deer hunter whose home sits on two acres near the Black Mountain Campground, said the problem of more humans encountering bears is less about the bears than about developers building more housing in the woods.

Utah Primate Freedom Project to Protest Annnual Meeting of American Association for Laboratory Animal Science

Yes, believe it or not, there is an association to support animal testing.

Article:

Animal Rights Activists Plan Protests During AALAS Convention

http://www.kcpw.org/article/1981

Oct 16, 2006 by Lara Jones

Vigils Outside Researchers' Homes This Evening
(KCPW News) Animal rights activists are hitting town at the same time as more than 4,000 members of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science gather here for their 57th national meeting. While protests are planned outside the Salt Palace Convention Center as well as downtown hotels where many attendees are staying, Utah Primate Freedom Project says vigils also are planned in the community:

"Most of the evening protests are also going to be home protests," says Jeremy Beckham of the Utah Primate Freedom Project. "They're going to be vigils outside people's homes related to animal research.

Utah Primate Freedom Project is dedicated to ending the use of primates in medical research locally. According to the group's website, the first home vigil will happen this evening, although the target of the "peaceful protest" has yet to be revealed.

Group Will Ask for Inquiry into University of Washington’s Primate Research Lab

As stated below, “[t]he organization said it obtained post-mortem records for primates in the lab that show that some of the animals were "highly stressed" and "seriously" ill before death.”

Article:

Animal rights group wants inquiry at UW

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/288611_animals13.html

P-I STAFF

Stop Animal Exploitation Now said Thursday it would ask the federal government to investigate the University of Washington's primate research lab.

The organization said it obtained post-mortem records for primates in the lab that show that some of the animals were "highly stressed" and "seriously" ill before death.

Michael Budkie, investigator with the group, said at a news conference in downtown Seattle that he would ask the U.S. Department of Agriculture to look into the research conducted there. His appearance in Seattle was part of a national tour for National Primate Liberation Week.

In response to the complaint, a UW spokeswoman said in a statement, "The National Primate Research Center at the UW is a strictly regulated research facility, and our primary objective is to accomplish outstanding biomedical research in a safe environment that meets the physiologic and psychological needs of our animals."

Chinatown Merchants Arrested On Suspicion of Selling Vials of Bear Bile for Medicinal Uses

Bear bile comes from a particularly cruel process. For those who don't know what bile drip bears are, please see http://www.animalsasia.org/ You’ll understand then why it’s illegal here.

Article:

Merchants Arrested for Selling Bear Bile

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/
local/states/california/northern_california/15735325.htm

10.12.2006, 05:18 PM


State wildlife officers arrested four Chinatown merchants Wednesday on suspicion of selling vials of bear bile for medicinal uses.

Department of Fish and Game wardens made the arrests after merchants at three San Francisco businesses sold the bile to undercover officers, charging $30 and up for a vial, said agency spokesman Steve Martarano.

It is a felony to sell any part of a bear in California, according to the agency.

Those arrested were May Tham, 64, and Tit Tham, 69, of the Tung Shing Trading Co.; Thomas Tsz Wun Chan, 59, of Wing Hop Company Inc.; and Wei Hao Zeng, 40, of Tung Fong Trading Company.

Fish and Game officials believe the fluid may have been imported from China, where bears are raised on farms to make bile for traditional Chinese medicine. The bitter, green bile extracted from bear gallbladders is used to treat eye, liver and other ailments.

Animal rights activists have called on China to phase out bear farms, complaining that the animals are often raised in inhumane conditions.

Dog and Cat Cloning Firm - Genetic Savings & Clone - Closes Doors

Glad to see that even the super rich found this to be a tad bit strange.

I echo the words of Wayne Pacelle, head of the Humane Society of the United States - "It's no surprise the demand for cloned pets is basically nonexistent, and we're very pleased that Genetic Savings & Clone's attempt to run a cloning pet store was a spectacular flop. It's not just a bad business venture but also an operation grounded on the misuse of animals."

Article:

Gene Firm - Closing Up Cat Copy Shop

Few pet owners hired Genetic Saving & Clone to produce high-priced facsimilies.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-clone
12oct12,0,2536294.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From the Associated Press

October 12, 2006

There's a limit to how far even the most devoted pet lovers will go to have their favorite feline or canine for life.

Genetic Savings & Clone, a Sausalito, Calif., biotechnology company that sold cloned pets, sent letters to its customers last month informing them it will close at the end of the year because of meager demand for costly cloned cats. The company had recently reduced the price from $50,000 to $32,000. The company also failed in its attempts to clone pet dogs.

The letters said the firm had stopped accepting orders because it was "unable to develop the technology to the point that cloning pets is commercially viable."

The company was launched by billionaire University of Phoenix founder John Sperling, who had hoped to have his hunting dog, Missy, cloned — a feat that was never accomplished.

Since the company opened for business in 2000, it was behind the creation of five cloned cats but sold only two to paying customers.

The venture probably failed because reproductive cycles of pets are too unpredictable for consistent and inexpensive cloning, said Bonnie Beaver, a Texas A&M professor and past president of the American Veterinary Medical Assn.

The first commercially cloned cat was named Little Nicky and was delivered to a Texas woman who was saddened by the loss of a cat she had owned for 17 years.

Aside from human cloning, which has not been achieved even at the microscopic embryo stage, no cloning project has fueled more debate than the marketing plans of Genetic S&C.

Animal rights activists complained that new feline production systems weren't needed because thousands of stray cats were euthanized each year for want of homes.

"It's no surprise the demand for cloned pets is basically nonexistent, and we're very pleased that Genetic Savings & Clone's attempt to run a cloning pet store was a spectacular flop," said Wayne Pacelle, head of the Humane Society of the United States. "It's not just a bad business venture but also an operation grounded on the misuse of animals."

New US “Pet” Evacuation Bill Recently Signed Into Law Requires States to Present FEMA with Pet Evacuation Plans Before Receiving Funds

I’m very glad this bill was signed. However, I’m concerned about this requirement. Can you even imagine the bureaucracy that will be created by this requirement? And how many states will actually put forth a plan? I’m hoping many will, but I’m guessing that many will lag. We’ll see what will happen.

Here are the main points of the bill:

The federal law will require all states to present the Federal Emergency Management Agency with pet evacuation plans before receiving federal funds for emergency preparedness.

The law also authorizes FEMA to provide additional money to create pet-friendly shelters and provide special assistance to pet owners

Article:

States must help save pets

New law puts funds at risk if animals are not in disaster plans

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=
/c/a/2006/10/10/MNGQPLLPNI1.DTL

- Kimberly Geiger, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Click to View

(10-10) 04:00 PDT Washington -- States will be required to help evacuate pets during a natural disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake or risk losing federal money under a bill signed Friday by President Bush.

The bill was prompted by reports that as many as 50,000 pets were stranded during Hurricane Katrina. Rescue agencies have been criticized for the "no pets" policy that required pet owners to abandon their animals or defy evacuation orders and stay in the disaster area. Nearly half of those who refused to evacuate said they didn't want to leave their pets behind, according to an April poll by the Fritz Institute, a nonprofit agency involved with providing humanitarian relief work.

"Katrina gave us insight into the lack of preparedness for people and their pets," said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States, an animal advocacy group that rescued thousands of abandoned pets during and after the hurricane. Markarian said that even disabled people with guide dogs were being forced to choose between their pets and their safety.

Though many states have responded to criticism of the "no pets" policy and now incorporate pets' needs in their evacuation strategies, the federal law will require all states to present the Federal Emergency Management Agency with pet evacuation plans before receiving federal funds for emergency preparedness.

The law also authorizes FEMA to provide additional money to create pet-friendly shelters and provide special assistance to pet owners.

"People victimized by disasters should not suffer needless additional injury by having to abandon their household pets or service animals to their fate," said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who introduced the legislation after seeing television coverage of a young boy being separated from his dog after Katrina. "This country needs the force of federal law to protect people in large-scale emergencies who own household pets or service animals such as guide dogs."

A new state law sponsored by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, assures that California will be in compliance with the new federal requirements, Markarian said. California's law requires state emergency agencies to coordinate with the Department of Agriculture -- which has jurisdiction over animal rescues -- to create a statewide policy for pet evacuations.

Markarian said the lack of coordination among FEMA, private rescue workers and Louisiana's agriculture department complicated rescue efforts during Katrina. "There was no clear policy on how to deal with this issue, and many responders showed great courage and compassion ... but we cannot rely on individual acts of kindness," Markarian said.

A Zogby poll from October 2005 reports that Americans, by 2-to-1 ratio, believe that rescue efforts should include plans for accommodating pets, though only 4 percent say government agencies such as FEMA should be responsible for performing pet rescues. Instead, 42 percent say animal rights groups should conduct rescues, and 40 percent say the task should be shared among private groups, government agencies and individual pet owners.

A majority -- 54 percent -- say they disagree with the "no pets" policy used in Katrina's aftermath.

Estee Lauder Forced to Take Seahorses Out of Display at Dublin, Ireland Airport

Article:

Estee Lauder takes seahorses out of display

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/
pages/item.php?news=1102

Animal rights protesters want Seahorse Ireland to stop supplying seahorses.
Cosmetics giant Estee Lauder has asked for live seahorses to be removed from its display at Dublin Airport following complaints that some of the fish had died.

According to a report from the Dublin People, Dublin Airport Authority confirmed that a mechanical failure on a seahorse aquarium at an Estee Lauder shop in the airport caused a number of seahorses to die due to "suffocation".

Estee Lauder told the Dublin People that it obtained the seahorses from Seahorse Ireland, who produce the fish for the public aquarium and retail trade in captivity to reduce fishing pressures on wild stock. It says that it will no longer have the fish on display.

The death of the seahorses saw Dublin-based animal rights group Alliance For Animal Rights (AFAR) hold a protest outside the aquarium last week. The group says that seahorses are rare, protected species and should be have been used in the display. AFAR plans to put pressure on Seahorse Ireland to stop them supplying seahorses.

Seahorse Ireland says that it backed by the marine conservation groups Project Seahorse and the Seahorse Trust and its mission is to curb global demand for wild seahorses in all markets by producing them in captivity.

Kealan Doyle of Seahorse Ireland was reported as saying: "It was an unfortunate mechanical failure which led to the seahorses dying in the tank on this particular occasion. This is the first incident of any of the seahorses we supply actually dying like this.

"We are a reputable company and are recognised by the International Seahorse Trust. However, given this unfortunate incident, Estee Lauder took the decision that it would be best if all seahorses were removed from the tank."

India's Supreme Court Bans Country's 250 Zoos from Breeding Following Claims That Indiscriminate Breeding Was Leading To Overcrowding

Incredible news. Really sets a precedent and also sends a strong message that over breeding is a common issue in zoos, regardless of the location.

Article:

India's top court bans animal breeding in zoos

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=
DEL86014&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-5

Mon 9 Oct 2006 17:01:17 BST

NEW DELHI, Oct 9 (Reuters) - India's Supreme Court on Monday banned the country's 250 zoos from breeding programmes for their animals following allegations by animal rights activists that indiscriminate breeding was leading to overcrowding.

"We direct (that) no zoo shall permit any further breeding of animals," Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal said.

The order from India's top court came in response to a petition filed by PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) which accused zoos of carrying out unsystematic breeding, endangering the animals.

The group said zoos were violating a cap on the number of animals, such as tigers and deer, permitted to be bred in captivity and the overcrowding had left zoos ill-equipped to look after the animals.

"Most of these animals in zoos are also genetically unfit for breeding and their offspring can never be released in the wild," PETA counsel Raj Panjwani said.

The group said only 18 of the country's 250 zoos had a proper, planned breeding programme.

The court ordered an immediate halt to all breeding programmes in the country's zoos, which hold around 41,000 animals. They also called on local authorities to respond to PETA's request for experienced veterinary units in zoos.

Activists Again Raise Awareness to Cruelty Behind the Doors of UCLA

Article:

Animal Rights Activists Protest Over UCLA Research Practices

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10038984/detail.html

POSTED: 6:50 pm PDT October 9, 2006

WESTWOOD, Calif. -- Chanting "UCLA has blood on its hands" and other slogans, about a dozen animal rights activists marched at the Westwood campus Monday, demanding that the university change its research practices on monkeys and other primates.

The demonstrators say the animals are abused in the interest of science, allegations that UCLA officials deny.

In a letter sent last month to animal rights activist Michael Budkie, UCLA acting Chancellor Norman Abrams wrote that "all UCLA research involving animals is conducted in compliance with multiple, state, federal and university regulations established to ensure humane treatment. Furthermore, as you know, documents regarding UCLA's animal research program are subject to public information law."

The protest, which began about 10:30 a.m., took place under watchful eyes of campus police officers -- some on bicycles -- and there were no reports of arrests or trouble.

After marching on campus, the demonstrators took their complaints to the chancellor's office, where they met with Laurence Lokman, an assistant vice chancellor for communications.

In a telephone interview, activist Chris DeRose and Budkie said the demonstrators were told Abrams would not meet with them because campus officials believe the activists support using violence to achieve their goals.

DeRose said the activists "believe in the sanctity of all life and we would not be violent or injure a human being."

"They wanted us to come out and denounce the activities of other animal activists," DeRose said. "I don't know a single, solitary person in this movement who knows how to make a bomb. No one has ever been killed, slapped, hit or hurt."

On Aug. 29, the FBI offered a $60,000 reward for information about an attempted attack on a UCLA researcher.

In a July 11 report on its Web site, the Animal Liberation Front said it had left the device at the home of a UCLA researcher in Bel Air on June 30, FBI spokesman Kenneth Smith said.

Los Angeles Fire Department investigators said the device -- which failed to ignite -- was left at the wrong house, a residence actually occupied by a 70-year-old woman and her male tenant. The address was not disclosed.

"The ALF has yet to admit their potentially deadly error," Smith said in a statement. "The incendiary device used was similar to devices used by animal rights and environmental extremists."

The device, which contained a flammable liquid, was left at the victim's door, Smith said.

"It is the opinion of arson investigators that if the device had functioned properly, escape would have been difficult to impossible, given the hillside location of the house, possibly resulting in the death of the inhabitants of the residence," Smith said.

Dog Meat Illegal in Philippines, But Locals Still Love It: Crack Down Aims to Stop the Practice of Abusing and Then Slaughtering Dogs for Meat

Dog Meat Illegal in Philippines, But Locals Still Love It: Crack Down Aims to Stop the Practice of Abusing and Then Slaughtering Dogs for Meat

You’ll see in this article that those in the Philippines share the same love of abusing dogs and then slaughtering them. According to the article, this practice is illegal and an effort has begun to attempt to end it. We’ll see if it’s successful.

As the article states, “…the slaughtering of a dog and sale of its meat is prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act. The Meat Code of the Philippines also does not classify dogs as food animal.”

Article:

104 kilos of dog meat seized

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/baguio/index.html

By Jane Cadalig

A TOTAL of 104 kilos of dog meat were confiscated by authorities from two stalls at the city public market amid this month's "National Meat Consciousness" celebration.


The confiscation was made possible via the effort of the National Meat Inspection Service (NMIS), the Baguio City Police Office (BCPO) and the Animal Kingdom Foundation (AKF), a non-government organization advocating for the promotion of animal rights.

The dog meat was seized from the stalls of certain Lita Dizon and Victorino Montano, who are reportedly known as dog meat vendors in the market. These were brought to the NMIS compound for proper disposal.

The slaughtering of a dog and sale of its meat is prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act. The Meat Code of the Philippines also does not classify dogs as food animal.

Dr. Florencio Pintor, NMIS meat inspector, said the continuous sale of dog meats in the market is a violation of the Consumer Welfare Act (CWA) as these meats do not undergo post-mortem inspection.

He said there is a need to strictly implement laws and related local regulations to protect the welfare of animals, particularly dogs, which, he said, suffer the most maltreatment from humans.

"One of the most popular victims of tortures are dogs so its time for us to implement laws and (local) ordinances seeking to protect them," Pintor added.

He said he already asked Acting Mayor Reinaldo Bautista Jr. for a dialogue on dog meat trade and reiteration for the implementation of the city ordinance that regulates the trade.

Benguet once earned the ire of animal lovers even outside the country over a misconception that the province is planning to legalize dog meat trade. Letters swamped the Philippine Embassy and other concerned agencies, calling for the creation of a committee to address the concern.

The inter-agency committee, composed of the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI), the NMIS, the health and interior departments and provincial and city veterinarians league, recommended for the prohibition of dog slaughter, dog trafficking and dog-raising for purposes of consumption.

Okabashi Shoes Makes Dedication to Vegan and Environmental Practices in the Manufacturing of it’s Reflexology Footwear

Alwasys good to see companies heading towards adding animal issues to their concerns.

You can view their site at http://www.okabashi.com/environment

Article:

Shoe Manufacturer Steps Up

http://www.pollutioneng.com/

October 8, 2006



Okabashi Brands Inc., Buford, Ga., recently announced a series of environmental initiatives to be established at its corporate and manufacturing facility to support energy and resource conservation.

“For more than 25 years, we have been committed to keeping our manufacturing located in the United States, despite the challenges. We now want to bring that same commitment to making smart decisions and upholding the highest environmental standards when it comes to how we make and distribute our materials and shoes,” said Bahman Irvani, president and CEO.

The following measures were announced:

Recycling: Shoes can comprise up to 15 percent recycled material by regrinding proprietary material during production, which then can be put back into producing new shoes.

Vegan friendly: Company products are vegan friendly and do not contain bio-derived products.

Waste reduction: Surplus inventories are often donated to local, national and global causes including the National Odd Shoe Exchange. The company has also strived to ensure as much of its packaging material is either biodegradable or recyclable.

Employees taking action: Corporate employees have started an in-house recycling program for office paper and plastic refuse. Company employees are encouraged to participate in carpooling and telecommuting when possible.

Millions of Animals to Die In New EU Chemical Tests

What else can I say? The title speaks for itself. What a huge waste of life.

For information on animal testing and its real scientific merit see: http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/index.html

For more information on animal testing including number of animal used see http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/general_information_on_
animal_research/frequently_asked_questions_about_animals_in_research.html

For alternatives to the use of animals in research see: http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html

Article:

Millions of animals to die in new EU chemical tests

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2394028,00.html

Nicola Smith Brussels

TENS of millions of rabbits, mice and guinea pigs are facing a painful death in laboratory experiments to be imposed next April because of new European Union rules on chemical testing.

The new laws will set compulsory tests for about 30,000 chemicals that have been on the market since before 1981, when there were no stringent health and safety requirements.

Many of the chemicals are used in household items, from shampoo to children’s toys, and EU policymakers have pushed for the new standards, arguing that too little is known about the dangers for human health and the environment.

Products will have to stop using unsafe chemicals or be banned, but the tests cannot be carried out without the “collateral damage” to millions of animals. Campaigners protest that the tests are too indiscriminate and that not enough has been done to find humane alternatives.

Current estimates of the number of animals to be affected range from the 16m predicted by the chemicals industry to 45m over 15 years calculated by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.

The toxicological experiments will include chemicals dropped into rabbits’ eyes, irritants tested on guinea pigs’ skin and cancerous tumours grown on mice. The health risks of chemical exposure during pregnancy will also be assessed on rabbits, causing their babies to be stillborn.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said it was “horrified” at the prospect of so many animal experiments. A spokesman said that despite some positive changes to the draft law, too many animal tests would still be carried out unnecessarily.

Alistair Currie, campaigns director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said: “It is an animal welfare crisis. All of these tests could be replaced with non-animal tests.”

The new law, known as Reach (the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals), is the largest piece of legislation ever adopted by the EU and one of its most contentious. It has pitted the chemicals industry against the environmental lobby, the EU against America and, unusually, animal rights lobbyists against conservationists.

In a U-turn last week David Cameron, the Conservative leader, pledged that his 26 MEPs would back the legislation, boosting hopes that it will be finalised by the end of the year.

The European parliament’s environment committee faces a crucial vote on the law in Brussels on Tuesday. Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat MEP, said he would table a series of amendments to improve its animal welfare provisions but conceded that millions of creatures would still be sacrificed.

“We can do a lot more to reduce the need for tests and to speed up the introduction of alternative testing methods,” he said. “But let’s not pretend there will be no animal testing.”

The European commission said it could reduce the number of animal tests by 50% if approval is given to alternatives such as computer modelling.

US Group To Take Campaign to End the Slaughter of Horses for Food to England

Last week we wrote about the slaughter of thoroughbred horses in England for food. You can read about it here:
http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/10/
dirty-little-secret-of-horse-racing_02.html

And, we’ve written extensively about the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, an act put forth in the US to end the slaughter of horses for food. Unfortunately, as is typical in US politics, it is stalled and it’s future uncertain. You can read about the bill here: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-us-
horse-slaughter-legislation_26.html

These efforts will eventually pay off. Most people are against killing horses, no matter the cause.


Article:

Campaign to outlaw horse killings

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/
0,,1890414,00.html

US group steps in after The Observer reveals 7,000 young thoroughbreds are shot every year

Antony Barnett
Sunday October 8, 2006
The Observer

One of America's leading animal welfare groups is to launch a major campaign in Britain next year aimed at outlawing the slaughter of horses in this country to be exported for human consumption.

Last week, an Observer investigation revealed that as many as 7,000 horses a year are shot in two UK abattoirs. We disclosed how their throats are slit, their bodies hanged upside down and skinned before they are butchered to be sold across the Channel as gourmet meat. Many are thoroughbreds that have finished racing or never made the grade. The disclosure shocked many people in the animal world.

Now the US-based International Fund for Horses aims to make such killings illegal. It has been one of the major campaigners behind the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act in America, which has wide support across both the Republican and Democrat parties and is close to becoming law.

Its celebrity supporters include Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Bo Derek, Whoopi Goldberg, Keith Richards, Willie Nelson, Daryl Hannah and Paul McCartney.

The fund president, Vivian Farrell, said: 'When we started in the US many people simply didn't believe it was going on. The same is the case in the UK. Now thanks to articles like those in The Observer it cannot be ignored ... Whatever is successful in America we will attempt to use as a template for our efforts to get it banned in Britain.

'We are also working on a media campaign to make it socially unacceptable in the public imagination to eat horsemeat, using celebrities and events, the same way it was done with respect to cigarette smoking, to decrease demand. We are optimistic and committed. We will see this [through] to the end.'

Supporting its US campaign, Paul McCartney said: 'In this new century I think it is horrific and slightly strange to realise that horses, traditionally man's friend, are still being transported and slaughtered for human consumption.'

Republican Representative John Sweeney, who sponsored the Act in the US, said: 'It's one of the most inhumane, brutal and shady practices going on in the United States today.' More than 90,000 horses are slaughtered each year in the US.

In the Observer investigation, one owner of an abattoir in Nantwich, Cheshire, was recorded by an undercover reporter claiming that it killed between 2,000 and 3,000 racehorses a year. Later the company said the total was closer to several hundred.

While the racing industry has always tried to play down what happens to the 4,000 horses that retire each year from the sport, The Observer proved that many ended up on dinner plates. Even the bodies that regulate the industry have been forced to admit that over the last five years thousands of racehorses have been slaughtered in the UK for food.

The US animal welfare group is convinced its new campaign, which it plans to start early next year, will garner huge public and political support.

Yet a move to outlaw the slaughter of horses for meat in Britain could face opposition. In the US, the ban was opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association which feared rescue shelters would be swamped with hundreds of thousands of unwanted animals, while others would be sold to unregulated slaughterhouses overseas and brutalised.

A similar fear is shared by Tory MP James Gray, president of the Association of British Riding Schools. He opposes live exports but warned: 'The danger is that people will find a way round. Whether we like it or not, there is a huge demand for the meat across the Channel.'

Animal charities would like the multi-billion-pound racing industry to spend far more on providing places for retired horses. It spends only £250,000 a year on retraining 90 animals. Although some thoroughbreds are retrained for polo, hunting or other activities, many are unsuitable for general riding.

The British Horseracing Board, which governs the industry, said there was no evidence that a ban was necessary.

'We work closely with animal welfare groups like the RSPCA and the International League for the Protection of Horses. Unfortunately some horses need to be put down, for example if they are injured.

'Our concern is simply they are put down in the most humane way possible. We do not have a view what happens after that.'

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) Would Make It a Crime to Engage In Peaceful Protest If Causes Business to Suffer Loss in Profit

This article asks the following question: Could we be the next country to introduce restrictive legislation that prevents animal lover and animal welfare campaigners from protesting?
Not a strange question as this horrible, draconian, blatantly obvious business-focused bill will make us all terrorists. Absolutely ridiculous. Besides pedophiles, it shows you who’s in charge in the government – business.

Here's a little about the bill. And, in the article below, you’ll see a statement by the American Society for the Protection of Animals:

The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions at facilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of such conditions even if done lawfully would result in economic damage to the animal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to exclude economic damage that results from the disclosure of information about a company's treatment of animals, which is disclosed through public information.

Makes it illegal to protest against or prohibit profitability of any 'animal enterprise'. Effectively making puppy farmers and unprofessional breeders immune from criticism

Here's a good article on what you can do to respond: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/28/18315335.php


Article:

Could Protesting Against Puppy Farming Make You A Terrorist?

http://www.k9magazine.com/viewarticle.php?sid=15&aid=1570

A new law recently introduced in America has made it illegal to protest against or prohibit profitability of any 'animal enterprise'. Effectively making puppy farmers and unprofessional breeders immune from criticism. Could we be the next country to introduce restrictive legislation that prevents animal lover and animal welfare campaigners from protesting?

A representative of the American Society For The Protection Of Animals contacted us with this statement.

"The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), is a bill that could make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any business classified as an "animal enterprise" to suffer a loss of profit, even if the company's financial decline is the result of legal activities, such as peaceful protests, consumer boycotts or media campaigns. The term animal enterprise would include manufacturers, distributors and sellers of animals or animal products, research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, and animal shelters.

While the ASPCA strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism, property damage and trespass, this bill threatens to criminalize as terrorism otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected acts often utilized by citizens and organizations to effect change.

Lawful and peaceful protests that, for example, urge a consumer boycott of a company that does not use humane procedures, could be the target of this provision if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.

The bill would also make it illegal to expose cruel conditions at facilities such as puppy mills and research labs, if exposure of such conditions even if done lawfully would result in economic damage to the animal enterprise. There is no exemption in the bill to exclude economic damage that results from the disclosure of information about a company's treatment of animals, which is disclosed through public information.

The AETA has already been passed in the Senate, and a vote in the House is expected very soon.

Free To Good Home Adds: Case in Salt Lake City Proves How Sickos and Animal Abusers Use Them to Get Their Animal Victims

In addition to just wackos off the streets, sickos known as bunchers also scour papers for these free to good home adds. They then sell the animals to animal testing facilities. These are legal operations. Known as USDA Class B Dealers/Bunchers, they are the sickest of the sickest. For more on bunchers see -

http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_dog_theft.htm

This story truly shows the danger inputting out “Free to Good Home” adds.

Article:

SL Area Man Suspected Of Abusing, Killing Kittens

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_276184001.html

(KUTV) SALT LAKE CITY Police are investigating a man who may have a history of abusing and killing kittens.

Investigators say the unidentified man is alleged to have gotten free kittens from ads in Salt Lake area newspapers then abused them.

In June the man’s girlfriend brought in several kittens with broken bones to Salt Lake County Animal Services, say police. One kitten had a broken leg, broken tail and trauma to the body, as well as a mild concussion. Police told us when she returned home she found a second kitten with a broken tail and chemical burns.

Then, last week, another kitten was taken to a shelter with a broken tail and possible burns.
Police say the girlfriend of the alleged abuser told them that as many as seven or eight kittens were brought into the couple's home over the past few months, all of whom suffered injuries in various “accidents.”

Several of the animals simply disappeared and police say the woman believes they were killed.
The alleged abuser has an upcoming arraignment on other charges later this month. He may face animal abuse charges in these cases.

In Utah animal abuse is a class B misdemeanor.

Police say there are reports of domestic abuse in that home as well as the animal abuse. A survey of residents staying in shelters for battered women shows that 85 percent of women who entered shelter discussed incidents of pet abuse in the family, this according to Salt Lake County Animal Services.