DawnWatch.com

Big news this week is that police believe they have caught the BTK serial killer -- BTK being short for "Blind, Torture and Kill." The story was on the front pages of the Sunday, February 27, New York Times and Los Angeles Times, and is in hundreds of papers around the world today. I had only skimmed an article on it, and must thank Gloria Steinem, best known as a feminist leader but who is also a compassionate supporter of animal advocacy, for drawing my attention to Dennis Rader's profession -- he is a dog catcher. Though many articles on him omit that, the Los Angeles Times article mentions it right near the top. It opens:

"He called himself a monster, but in 31 years of hunting the serial killer known as BTK, Wichita police made it clear they were searching for a man who appeared in every way ordinary. On Saturday, they announced they finally had caught him.

"Dennis Rader, 59, a church-going family man, a Cub Scout leader, a dog-catcher for the trim suburb of Park City, is in custody on suspicion of torturing and killing seven women, one man and two children from 1974 to 1991 -- including two victims linked only this week to BTK."

Studies have revealed that the vast majority of serial killers practiced on animals. Those of us in the animal advocacy community, who understand the link between how human society treats members of other species and how humans treat each other, might not be surprised to learn that the man who is allegedly responsible for the horrific murders, made his living rounding up stray dogs for extermination. For now it is only my hypothesis, but an idea grounded in the research on serial killers, that some of those dogs were Rader's first torture victims. We might learn more about that as Rader's trial gets under way.

"Barry said that she once watched as Rader shot a neighbor's dog in front of the owners, Barry and her children.

"'If he didn't like the way animals were being treated in the neighborhood, he was right there to push the law on making it go his way,' Barry told 'Good Morning America' in an exclusive interview.

"Barry said she and her children were out on their front lawn one day, and a neighbor from across the street was outside with his dog. In his capacity as a dog catcher and ordinance officer, Barry said Rader approached the dog and allegedly tried to mace it.

"But, according to Barry, the 'wind blew the mace back in his face.' She says Rader groped for his tranquilizer gun, but couldn't get to it. That's when he allegedly pulled out a gun and shot the dog."

Mary Lou Randour, the Program Director of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has written an excellent essay on the link between animal and human cruelty, which discusses the animal cruelty background of many serial killers. You will find it on line at: http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/writes/editorial/features/link/randour_link.html

The Los Angeles Times takes letters at letters@latimes.com -- but the story is appearing in every paper. While the media has has not focussed on the connection between Rader's insensitivity to dogs and the pleasure he took in hurting people, CNN has mentioned that Rader is a dog-catcher and ABC has covered the dog shooting. I hope people will write to their local papers, where they have the greatest chance of being published (some of the smaller papers publish close to 100% of the letters they receive) noting Rader's background and reminding people of the link between human and animal cruelty and the ways society can benefit if we take the latter seriously. The BTK victims have given us an opportunity to speak on behalf of all those who have faced similar horrors.

Don’t hesitate to ask me for help if you have trouble finding the correct address for a letter to your editor. And I am always happy to edit letters. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

The front page of the Thursday, February 24, Los Angeles Times has a story headed, "Trackers Kill Tiger in Ventura County."

"Sharpshooters searching for a 425-pound tiger that had prowled the hills of Simi Valley for two weeks shot and killed it Wednesday after a family awoke to find it walking past their backyard.

"The decision by government trackers to use high-powered rifles instead of tranquilizer darts to bring down the elusive cat outraged animal rights activists. But state officials said they had no alternative but to shoot to kill, because the animal could have attacked or bolted onto a highway or into a public park nearby.

"Thus ended a bizarre two-week saga that brought wilderness trappers to suburbia and forced families to keep children and pets indoors after huge cat tracks started being spotted throughout the oak-studded hills of eastern Ventura County."

"Using a tranquilizer gun was an option that was available, but the safety of residents and motorists was of great concern."

"But animal rights activists said death was too high a penalty for an animal that had not harmed anyone since its tracks were discovered Feb. 8 on the grounds of a nursery in the nearby Santa Rosa Valley."

"With all this time to track it and all these options they could draw on, you have to ask the question, was it really necessary to kill the tiger?" said Madeline Bernstein, president of the Los Angeles branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

"Fish and Game's attitude is to seek and destroy rather than to protect and serve."

"If they had tranquilized it and it ran away or if it decided to attack a hunter, then kill it. But at least try to sedate it first."

With regard to the cat's background, we read: "Investigators also were trying to figure out where the cat came from. They interviewed a number of residents in the area who hold permits to keep exotic cats, but no one has owned up to the animal, Swauger said. The tiger also could have been kept illegally, he said."

The article tells us that the Fish and Game Department was expecting an uproar from animal rights activists due to its choice to shoot first, without giving tranquilization a chance. But perhaps it would be more useful for us to use this opportunity to discuss, in letters to the editor, the miserable lives of most big cats kept in captivity, rather than the violent death of this particular cat. When I think of big cats in captivity I also think of the miserable lives and violent deaths of the hundreds of factory farmed animals each cat eats.

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

There was a story on the front page of the Travel section of the Sunday, February 21 Washington Post, (Pg P01) about the vegetarian travel industry, headed "Would you eat this pig?"

It focused on the White Pig Bed and Breakfast in Schuyler, Virginia, run by " strict vegans who take in pigs that are abused, abandoned or slated for the frying pan" but goes on to talk about the vegetarian travel market "could feasibly include 5.7 million people, the number of vegetarians in America for 2003, according to the Vegetarian Resource Group, a nonprofit organization in Baltimore that educates the public about the veggie lifestyle." It discusses veggie food one can find in various countries or on cruises. And it presents a nice opportunity for appreciative pro-veggie letters to the editor. You'll find the article on line at:

The Post advises: "Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments."

The cover story of the current Anchorage Press (February 17-23) is about Maggie, the elephant languishing in the Anchorage Zoo. It is a beautiful article, detailing her plight, giving us information on the pitiful history of elephants in captivity, and questioning the keeping of wild animals captive for human entertainment. The article, by Robert Meyerowitz, is headed "Elephant in the Room."

"The Alaska Zoo, with its rough-hewn rails and obvious cages, feels like a throwback to a simpler time and place - say, a Boy Scout camp circa 1965 - more than it resembles modern zoos today, which often strive to seem not like zoos at all. Whether more natural habitats and invisible enclosures make captive animals happier, or simply make visitors feel better about captive animals, they're parts of one more Outside idea that's taking its time coming north."

We learn that Maggie has been in the Alaska Zoo for 21 years, and that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and many other groups feel "she ought to be able to spend her golden years in the sun, in the company of other elephants, preferably in a sanctuary."

"Rob Smith, Maggie's lead attendant, led me inside. In the winter, Maggie lives in what is essentially a huge cage inside an even bigger room, with a small, adjoining office for humans. The big room was warm, lit and steamy from hot water used for cleaning."

We learn that "Maggie is unrestrained within her cage except when she eats breakfast, for about half an hour, so zoo workers can clean in her enclosure; at those times, one of her front legs is chained to a cage bar."

We read about Maggie's personality, and then about elephants in general, such as the way they communicate at frequencies too low for humans to hear. Then we learn about their history in human captivity: in combat, zoos, early circuses and about astonishing human cruelty towards these animals.

Meyerowitz shares a description, from Martin Meredith, of a series of staged by the Roman general Pompey in 55 BC that "culminated with 20 elephants put in the ring against javelin-wielding African tribesman, the Gaetulians." Meredith writes, of one elephant who put up a valiant fight:

"Wounded in its feet, it crawled on its knees towards the Gaetulians, snatching their shields and tossing them into the air. Another elephant was killed by a single blow from a javelin, which struck it just below the eye. The remaining elephants then tried to escape by breaking through the iron barriers of the enclosure protecting spectators. When their attempt failed, they stood in the arena waving their trunks in desperation and trumpeting piteously."

From that shameful ancient history, we move to shameful recent history, and specifically to Maggie's:

"In the 1980s, African elephants were imperiled as never before. The trade in ivory was accelerating, and the elephants, which had been moved to game preserves, were overgrazing. The government of Zimbabwe, like some other African states, culled their herds. From 1981 to 1988, Zimbabwe slaughtered nearly 25,000 elephants, selling the ivory and other body parts. Biologists, conservationists and others protested what they said was senseless killing, but there were also conservationists who supported programs like Zimbabwe's as sound game management....

"In 1983, a Zimbabwe cull left five baby elephants watching on grassy plains as all the adults in their herds, all the elephants they'd ever known, were cut down around their ears. The five orphans were purchased by Americans and flown to the Catskill Game Farm, a private zoo in Upstate New York."

One of those orphans was then purchased by the Anchorage Zoo, as a companion for the zoos solo elephant, Annabelle. She was named Maggie.

"Animals in a zoo fascinate me because I can see them. At the same time, I don't ever really suppose they want to be there, any more than my childhood collie really wanted us to dress him up. I just blind myself to that elephant in the room to satisfy my curiosity. I'd bet I'm not the only person at the zoo lying to myself this way, pretending that this is somehow a choice the zebra or the leopard would make. What worries me is this: Isn't saying we want zoos to remain really to say that our interest in other animals is more important than their happiness?"

He admits that meeting Maggie instilled in him some of the wonder that zoo proponents say makes zoos worthwhile. But he writes:

"I'm not sure the average zoo visitor, for whose benefit Maggie was brought here, has anything like my experience. One recent Saturday morning I went to the zoo during regular hours and went to the back, to the elephant house. It was a bitterly cold day, and the elephant house was warm. I watched as people trooped in until the gallery held about twenty folks, families with toddlers in strollers, mothers and fathers with just their eyes and the tops of their noses showing above their scarves, two Goth teen girls and several soldiers. They all stopped for a moment once they were inside and looked at Maggie, but Maggie wasn't doing anything much that morning, just standing in her enclosure, her broad rump at a 45-degree angle to the audience, her head in shadow. She was doing what I imagine she spends much of her time doing, just standing around....The visitors that cold morning noted that this was indeed an elephant, as promised, and a few read aloud from the sign above their heads that talked about the size and shape and parts of African elephants, and the danger they face nowadays in the wild, but eventually everyone in the room ceased to pay the elephant much attention at all, which made sense, since Maggie didn't seem interested in them either. But it was cold outside. So the people lingered and soon were enveloped in their conversations, their heads turned away from the enclosure, and, except for a loud snort every now and then that punctuated their chatter about work and school and hockey practice, it was as though they had no idea they were in a room with an elephant."

And you can write appreciative letters, making it clear that the public would like to see Maggie, after all she and her kind have suffered, released to sanctuary.

A lead article in the Chicago Tribune (Zone NW, Pg. 1) tells us more about the world of horseracing. It is headed, "Trainers of horses face new drug fine; Rule covers animals that test for cocaine."

It opens: "Wading into a controversial issue, the Illinois Racing Board voted Thursday to fine trainers whose horses test positive for trace amounts of cocaine but to allow them to keep prize money the horses win, even after repeated violations."

"The board sided with experts who say low levels of cocaine do not indicate cheating but accidental contamination from, for example, a drug-using stable employee who might touch a horse's bridle or feed."

"The cocaine issue has split racing officials around the country. Some states disqualify horses for low levels of the drug, expressing skepticism about contamination theories. They urge 'zero tolerance' of trainers who might try to use the drug to make horses run faster or at full speed despite injuries."

It presents a good opportunity for letters to the editor questioning the exploitation of members of other species for human entertainment.

As of midnight tonight, foxhunting with hounds will be against the law in the UK. Unfortunately, today, Thursday, February 17, the Washington Post has run a story on the front page of its style section that reads like a love-letter to the blood-sport. It is headed, "Call Off the Hounds: In England, the Time-Honored Tradition of Fox Hunting Is About to Become History." It would not be so upsetting, could even be tolerated like a generous eulogy for a violent offender we no longer need fear, if it were not printed in a country where foxhunting is still legal, in an area where it is gaining popularity. (See the Feb 10 International Herald Tribune article on the popularity of foxhunting in America: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/09/news/fox.html )

Please take a look at the article and politely (preferably without attacking the paper as papers tend not to publish harsh criticism of themselves) express your disapproval of animal cruelty as entertainment. The Washington Post takes letters at: letters@washpost.com and advises, "Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments."

MCLIBEL CASE: REVIEW OVER RULING -- GUARDIAN FRONT PAGE AND NY TIMES 2/16/05

There is good news on the front page of the UK's Wednesday, February 16, Guardian, in an article headed: "Libel law review over McDonald's ruling." The New York Times is also carrying the story (below).

"The government is to review the libel laws after two penniless environmental campaigners who were sued by McDonald's, the global burger chain, yesterday won a ruling at the European court of human rights that their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression were violated when they were denied legal aid.

"The libel battle pitted Helen Steel, a part-time barmaid earning £65 a week, and David Morris, a single parent on income support, against an expert legal team headed by a £2,000-a-day libel QC in a 313-day trial, the longest in English legal history.

"The Strasbourg court awarded damages of £13,750 to Ms Steel and £10,300 to Mr Morris.

Apart from paying the damages, the government will have to open the legal aid purse strings to impecunious defendants sued by multinational corporations or wealthy individuals in complex cases."

"McDonald's sued Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from north London, in 1990 over leaflets headed 'What's Wrong With McDonald's?,' which they distributed outside the burger chain's restaurants.

"These accused the chain of exploiting children, cruelty to animals, destroying the rainforest, paying low wages and peddling unhealthy food....

"Despite the obstacles, the two campaigners won a ruling from the high court that some of the claims in the leaflet were true, in what was described as 'the biggest corporate PR disaster in history'. Mr Justice Bell ruled that the leaflet was correct when it accused the company of paying low wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products, and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

Another article, on page 5, headed, "20-year fight ends with libel law in the dock" details what the defendants were up against and tells us, "the heart of their case was that McDonald's, a company with a turnover of $40bn (£21bn) a year, was unfairly using the British libel laws to sue two penniless people for libel over public interest issues which affect people's every day lives. It was a clear case, they said, of the corporate censorship of opposition and debate backed by the British establishment.

The New York Times article, headed "Britain Faulted Over McDonald's Libel Case" (page C5) leads with the meat of the campaign against McDonald's. It opens:

"Two anti-McDonald's activists convicted of libel in Britain for criticizing the company's animal rights practices, its environmental policies and the nutritional value of its food did not get a fair trial and should be compensated by the British government, a European court said Tuesday...

"The trial still holds the record as Britain's longest, and helped fuel anti-McDonald's sentiment throughout Europe.

"In its 1997 decision, the High Court in Britain ruled that some, but not all, of the information in the pamphlet was correct. Defendants in British libel cases must prove that everything they said is true, rather than the plaintiffs proving that what has been said is false. (The court found that McDonald's was not responsible for starvation in the third world, rain forest deforestation or food poisoning, but that it was culpable for cruel treatment of chickens and sows, and for paying low wages.)"

"On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights said the ruling was unfair, in part because Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris were not granted legal aid....

"The European court also weighed in on freedom of expression, saying that there was a 'strong public interest' in enabling groups outside the mainstream to 'contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and environment.'

They present great opportunities for supportive letters following Steel and Morris's example, speaking up for those who cannot, who are at the mercy of McDonald's and the many other corporations and industries that profit from animal abuse.

The Guardian takes letters at: letters@guardian.co.uk and instructs: "We do not publish letters where only an email address is supplied; please include a full postal address and a reference to the relevant article. If you do not want your email address published, please say so. We may edit letters."

ABC's "BOSTON LEGAL" highlights Mad Cow Disease danger and government complicity 2/13/05

David Kelley has done it again! The producer's earlier hit show, The Practice, won a Genesis Award for an 11/17/02 episode that included graphic slaughterhouse and vivisection footage showing American primetime TV viewers that horrendous cruelty to animals is part of the American way of life. Last night, Sunday February 13, 2005, an episode of Kelly's new series "Boston Legal" spelled out government complicity in a cover-up surrounding the danger of Mad Cow Disease. In a back-handed manner it implied that those who will not speak out against the meat industry are "Nansy-Pansies," in fear of being labeled as such.

I will summarize the plot, below, including transcripts of the relevant dialogue. Please thank Boston Legal for bringing the matter to the attention of the people, as only a hit TV show can do. Comments should be sent to ABC's Audience Relations Department at netaudr@abc.com

Be sure to make it clear, in your subject line, that your comment pertains to "Boston Legal." I expect that David Kelly and ABC will get plenty of flak from the meat industry for this episode (in which, ironically, we are reminded what happened to Oprah). It would be such a shame if that were not balanced with an outpouring of appreciation from viewers.

I send a huge thank you to Judith Fish, Teresa D'Amico, and MargaretATsunflower.com, who live east of me, caught the show before it aired in Los Angeles, knew that word of it wasn't circulating on the major animal protection email lists, and made sure I knew to watch and tape it so we could all be filled in.

The plot opens as lawyers Shirley Schmidt (played by Candice Bergen) and Denny Crane (played by William Shatner) watch, with a new client, a tape of a news report.

NEWS ANNOUNCER: And in an unprecedented if not bizarre move, the selectmen of Summersport Massachusetts, a small South Shore town, population 18,000, voted six to two yesterday, to ban red meat. As of midnight, it is now illegal to serve or sell beef within the township, Mayor George Boswitch calling the law a health and safety regulation.

CLIENT: They did, but nobody took it that seriously. And the mayor controls the selectmen, and this is exactly the sort of publicity he is hoping to buy. In the meantime, my steakhouse is out of business.

CLIENT: Well they got a whole campaign to go with it. They plan to promote Summersport as the seafood capitol of the world.

CRANE: We're carnivores! When the pilgrims landed, the first thing they did was eat a few Indians.

Schmidt says they will get a "TRO." She will mark up a motion and get the owners of the other affected restaurants to join them.

JUDGE: Hold on one second Ms Schmidt. In my courtroom we allow counsel to finish their thoughts. We do not...

SCHMIDT: If I could interrupt. The author of this preposterous legislation happens to be both politically ambitious and a glutton for publicity, which, this new law, funny thing, happens to be generating.

SCHMIDT: So do overzealous elected officials; we don’t just ban them. If only we could.

JUDGE: Now I shall do the interrupting. If nothing else I pride myself on being a conscientious fact finder.

JUDGE TO MAYOR'S LAWYER: What is the specific reason for your client banning the sale of red meat?

JUDGE: Very well, we shall hold an evidentiary hearing. The first person I shall hear from is the mayor. Then Ms Schmidt, if you so desire, I shall listen to your client. Until then, we are adjourned.

SCHMIDT: Research shows, Denny, it is not wise to antagonize the people whose favor you are trying to court!

(In this scene, the impression is furthered that while Crane is brilliant, he is not "all there.")

MAYOR TO PRESS: Sometimes a mayor has to do what is right even if it isn't popular. Red meat presents risks, which I, as the guardian of my constituency, am unwilling to assume.

SCHMIDT TO PRESS: The legislation is capricious on its face – that will be our only comment.

CRANE TO PRESS: Pop goes the weasel. Denny Crane. Who’s your Daddy? Pop goes the weasel.

MAYOR: Simply put, I don't think we can guarantee the safety of beef. For starters, we just lifted the ban on Canadian cattle, where Mad Cow Disease was just found, again!

MAYOR: But why take chances? Consider this disease. It's incurable. It rots the brain. It is invariably fatal and it's a painful death.

MAYOR'S LAWYER: But our government has assured us there is absolutely no danger in this.

MAYOR: Our government is pro beef. Are you kidding? In the last five years the agriculture business has donated 140 million dollars to congressional and presidential candidates. Fast food chains, the Cattleman's Beef Association, you name it, they've all given big bucks.

MAYOR: You want evidence? How bout, the last secretary of Agriculture appointed meat industry advocates to top jobs at the USDA? How bout, the secretary's former chief of staff used to be the chief lobbyist for the National Cattleman's Beef Association? The USDA has been bought.

MAYOR'S LAWYER: Pretty strong words Ms Boswitch. Oprah got sued for saying less.

MAYOR: Well, what does that tell you? The meat industry gets to sue a talk-show host for putting down a hamburger. Free speech doesn't apply when it comes to beef?

MAYOR: But they have a double-mandate, your honor. And while one may be to keep beef safe, the other, the bigger one is to promote the sale of American meat. You think there is a real interest in this country in routing out Mad Cow Disease? It's don't ask, don’t tell.

MAYOR: This past April a cow stumbled and fell in Texas. The vets suspected a central nervous system disorder. That animal should have been tested. It wasn't. It was quickly slaughtered and put into pig feed. Why? Because God forbid we discover Mad Cow Disease, it would cost billions and billions of dollars. Well I'm not gonna wait. If that gets me sued, so be it.

SCHMIDT: How many people in this country have been afflicted with the human strain of Mad Cow Disease?

MAYOR: According to some scientists many people we think have Alzheimer's could, in fact, be sick from Mad Cow.

SCHMIDT: You were a car salesman. Given that three million people are killed or injured on our roads every year do you also plan to ban automobiles?

MAYOR: But again, I made a judgment as mayor, and the selectmen concurred that the dangers of beef...

CRANE STANDS: You would agree, Mr. Mayor, by and large, that vegetarians are communists?

CRANE: We're at war Mr. Boswitch. Think we can win that war if we suddenly say to our soldiers 'no more meat'? Think a nation of fish-eaters can protect the world, you wimp?

CRANE: Don’t bother with the mayor Shirley, in this case, its all about the judge.

DOCTOR: We don't have the means to keep track of what cattle are being fed. Nor are we adequately testing them, in my opinion.

DOCTOR: I am sorry, but it is absolutely reckless for a government to be telling us we are safe when the scientific community can’t necessarily detect all the ways this disease can be contracted or transmitted.

JUDGE: But let's look at statistics. Nobody in this country seems to be getting sick from mad cows.

DOCTOR: Judge, we just can't know that. The disease may have an incubation period of up to forty years. You may be infected right now.

DOCTOR: We don't know that for sure either. The human strain of the mad cow disease is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We call it CJD. But you can also get CJD sporadically, with no link to infected meat. And some of the people we have diagnosed with Alzheimer's might, in fact, have CJD. We don’t know how many cases there really are. You cannot tell me the government has all this figured out.

DOCTOR: Well, its probably not so much a cover-up. It's just we're not terribly motivated to discover the problem. The economic consequences would be too severe.

SCHMIDT: Economic consequences. The beef industry would risk an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. That wouldn't bankrupt them overnight?

DOCTOR: The beef industry can't always tell when a cow is sick. And they're desperate to believe that isolated cases are isolated cases.

DOCTOR: The month after that sick cow was found in Washington State, Mad Cow testing dropped almost fifty percent. That's outrageous.

DOCTOR: Look. They tried to track the herd where that Washington cow came from. They couldn't find 53 of the 80 cows. They since admitted their cattle track back system isn't up and running, and it would have to be done on a voluntary basis. Voluntary. Please. What meatpacking plant wants the distinction of having a mad cow?

CRANE: I am 72 and I can mop the floor with you. You know why? I eat meat! Makes me strong, builds my immune system, fights off a whole bunch of other diseases I might have had if I weren't so strong. Red meat saves lives maybe. Ever think about that?

DOCTOR: Hard evidence, no. But I don't think we really want to wait for that evidence to come rushing in.

CRANE TO SCHMIDT: I will tell you this one more time. Play the judge. The man lives with his mother. He wears lifts. The buzzword is Nansy-Pansy.

CRANE: Nansy-Pansy. He doesn't want to fall on that side of the fence! It is even worse than Namby-Pamby.

(Interestingly, the parallel plot in the same episode, dealing with a bar-room brawl, focused on issues of proving masculinity.)

SCHMIDT: What do you know about that cow in Washington State? I am about to suffer an embarrassing defeat in court. I need to show that what happened in Washington was an isolated…

ASSISTANT: Don’t go near the Washington case. It is possible it wasn't even a downer cow.

ASSISTANT: Basically it means the cow fell down. We're told that the mad cows are easy to spot because they stumble and fall. We're told that this cow fell. But eyewitnesses in Washington say the cow was walking and was tested only as a fluke.

ASSISTANT: While we are being told that the sick cows show easily detectable symptoms….

Schmidt tells another lawyer she is tempted to employ Denny’s strategy: "Nansy-Pansy."

SCHMIDT: We had an expression in this country years ago called "Where’s the beef." Translation: "Where’s the substance?" Your honor, do you know anybody who has been victimized by mad cow disease, know anybody who knows anybody, know anybody who knows anybody who knows anybody? There is simply not a shred of evidence to suggest that a single person in this country has ever become ill from a mad cow. But, "Why wait?" That’s the mayor's jingle. Why wait? Because this man and others like him have sacrificed their lives and their livelihoods building their restaurants. Maybe as a courtesy we could wait for a scintilla of evidence before arbitrarily destroying their businesses. The fact is the USDA has done an exemplary job conducting tests, establishing safe-guards to prevent the outbreak of Mad Cow Disease, which is probably why it hasn't broken out. What, we could give into our fear and panic, baseless panic, but that would make us…(long pause, she looks at Crane then continues

) a nation of Nansy-Pansies. I don't know about you but I don't want to be a Nansy-Pansy.

Towns make rules all the time. Lots of them. Zone fast food restaurants out of business. Through permits, they can control how you build your house. Some towns ban alcohol, cigarettes. Others have curfews. We do all kinds of things. The only legal requirement is that the laws are reasonable. It is not unreasonable to fear an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. We have had a case in Washington State. Another last month in Canada – we just lifted the ban on Canadian beef! The incubation period for this disease could be decades. We have no guarantee that we are not already infected. It is simply reckless for the government to be injecting certainty when the scientific community cannot. And forget Mad Cow. We already know that eating beef can cause high cholesterol, heart disease, it increases the risk of colon cancer. There is listeria and e-coli, which has already killed people. Dioxin, the poison that almost killed the Ukrainian president --that stuff is on our grazing grass. Scienti

sts say the average American has about ten units of Dioxin in their blood fat, simply from eating animal fat. There are all kinds of reasonable justifications for a mayor to try to reduce red meat from the diet of his citizenry. And let me remind you, there is nothing, nothing in the constitution, that guarantees anybody the right to sell a hamburger.

We see the judge look over at Crane, and Crane mouths to him the words, "Nansy-Pansy" and then shakes his head.

JUDGE: I did some research on my own. As you know I pride myself on being a conscientious fact finder.

Crane and the judge exchange looks, and Crane waves his index finger and mouths "No Nansy-Pansy."

JUDGE CONTINUES: Mad Cow Disease is here. And for all the guarantees supplied by the government, the scientific community doesn't back them up. We all have the right to be concerned. The government agencies in place to protect us seem to be controlled by the industries we need protection from. This Mad Cow Disease started out in Europe and worked its way over here. And it is true, the scientists are at odds with our government. But as a tryer of fact, a judge must rely on facts and there is no evidence of an epidemic. If a judge was to allow himself to be governed by fear alone then it is true, and I agree, it would make him a…a… (exchanges glances with Crane) Nansy-Pansy. This judge is anything but! I find the law banning the sale of red meat to be premature if not capricious and it is herby overturned.

Later, at night, Crane is having a drink and a cigar with another lawyer, Alan Shore (played by James Spader), who had also just won a case. Here is the part of their conversation relevant to the Mad Cow Disease:

If you read the summary above and were delighted, as I was, please do not move on to your next email, or forward this alert to anybody else, without first sending a quick note of appreciation to ABC's audience relations department at: netaudr@abc.com

Boston Legal and ABC deserve many thanks for taking the stand for which Oprah got slammed.

FOLLOW-UP, SUMMARY, PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF CSI's CANNED HUNTING EPISODE 2/10/05

In keeping with the animal friendly (and vegetarian friendly) history of the hit series CSI, the Thursday, February 10, episode, was terrific. Not only was the horror of canned hunting exposed, a sympathetic character pointed to the suffering and brutality involved in all hunting. The episode also addressed the killing of bears for their gall bladders, as well as the sad fate of zoo animals, once they have out-grown the cute phase.

Yesterday, I expressed some fear that canned hunting would be juxtaposed against other good clean hunting. Thankfully, that didn't happen, though there was a hint of such thinking: When the lead investigator, Catherine Willows, watches a rhinoceros being killed on a canned hunt tape, she is visibly shaken and says, "There’s just no sport in that, it is just sick." Of course there is no sport in any hunting, since the unarmed, often herbivorous animal has never agreed to play. However, the groups leading the anti-canned hunt campaigns have found that the word "unsportsmanlike" polls well. They therefore use it in their op-eds, press releases and story pitches. I am sure their polls have some validity, and that using the word might aid a quick win in the battle against this specific form of hunting. But I cannot believe that, in the bigger picture, it is a good idea to take on the language of the oppressors and even to help them, the regular sport-hunters, separate themselves o

We cannot, however, condemn the CSI producers for disseminating ideas fed to them by animal protection groups. The program has obviously done its best to present the animal protection position, even including lines that condemn all hunting. It should therefore be strongly commended.

Below I will summarize the bear plot. (The CSI team, always working on more than one case at a time, investigated an unrelated murder on the same show.) I will include the various animal-friendly lines.

I ask you to please thank the show for covering the issue. I cannot overemphasize the importance of feedback. Loads of positive feedback will confirm that the audience is sympathetic to animal protection issues; it will encourage more animal friendly coverage in the future. The show takes feedback at:

Rangers found the body of a hunter, with claw marks and his "carotid artery ripped to shreds."

Near him was the body of a bear. The ranger tells the Crime Scene Investigators,

Because of the stomach wound, the team realizes there must have been another person, besides the dead hunter, at the scene after the bear was killed : "There is no way a person can come this close to a live bear."

One investigator finds a bush with broken branches, and material from somebody’s torn pants, and comments, "I bet somebody else was out here and they were running for their life."

"As for the bear, two bullets to the head. The first, non fatal, was a straight-on shot. Bears' foreheads are sloped, so the bullet ricocheted off the skull leaving a copper jacket which peeled away and embedded in the hide. The fatal bullet entered through the ear, lodged in the brain. I removed it already."

It is noted that the first bullet came from a rifle, and the second from a hand-gun, but the hunter did not have a hand gun. And we learn that the bear’s stomach was cut open because the gall bladder was removed post mortem. The coroner says "I can’t tell you why.'

In the next relevant scene, the CSI investigators notice that the hunter’s watch is "Pretty high-end."

"Yeah, hunting’s not exactly a poor man’s sport. US presidents still hold up dead ducks for photo-ops."

We learn that the coroner has confirmed that the bear killed the hunter, but that the case is not closed, since "There is no way a Kodiak bear just wanders into Nevada, so whoever smuggled him in could be charged with Homicide. The bear could be considered a lethal weapon."

Next we learn that the coroner found a microchip between the bear’s shoulder blades, and traced it to the Clark County Zoo.

We see the investigators standing in front of an enclosure filled with lions. There is a fun inside joke: The zoo shots were actually done at Shambala, Tippi Hedren’s sanctuary for big cats, and the script-writers named the dead bear Tippi.

When the zoo owner, named Mr Tracy, is told that the microchip was registered to his zoo, he looks at the number and responds, "Oh God. That’s Tippi. What happened?"

Tracy: "Well we sold him to a broker a few weeks ago. Said he found him a home at the Columbus zoo."

Tracy: "Animal broker. Visitors want to see babies. The brokers find other zoos to purchase our surplus adult animals. Tippi was so gentle he would eat grapes right out of my hand."

(Note: It is terrific that CSI let people know what the fate of older zoo animals can be, however in this episode it is presented as unusual, and the perpetrators are caught. The August 5, 2002 edition of US News & World report included a story headed, "Cruel and Usual: How some of America's best zoos get rid of their old, infirm, and unwanted animals." The article discusses both canned hunts and pitiful roadside zoos and tells us, "Dumping animals is the big, respectable zoos' dirty little secret." I have posted that article on my website at: http://www.DawnWatch.com/Cruel_and_Usual.htm )

Back at the lab, we find investigator Warrick Brown at his computer, looking at a website on the "Bear Part Trade." He says, to Catherine

"I think I know why somebody snagged that bear’s gall bladder. Apparently in the south east Asian communities some men believe it enhances their virility. It contains some chemical called ursodio oxycholic acid. These gall bladders go for 500 dollars a pop."

(Note: Please visit http://www.AnimalsAsia.org to learn more about the trade in bear bile, see horrifying photos of bears living in barely body-fittings cages so that bile can be extracted, then happy photos of rescued bears on the Animals Asia sanctuary -- and information on how you can help.)

Next, we learn that the hunter has been identified. Police have found an abandoned Mercedes (presumably not one of the new ones with optional cloth seats) belonging to Rod Hollis, who had a hunting license that included tags for wild deer, goats and big-horn sheep.

Nick interviewed the hunter's wife, learning they were separated. It is in this scene that CSI shines light on the cruelty of all hunting -- not just canned hunts:

Ms Hollis: …"The officer said Rod died while hunting, can I ask what happened?"

Nick: "He was mauled by a bear. Ms Hollis, I have reason to believe there was somebody else out there with him. Any idea who?"

Ms Hollis: "No. In our circle of friends he was the only one who owned a gun. We used to fight about his sport. I showed him studies about how the animals suffer…

We learn the bullet that killed the bear came from a 357 magnum revolver registered to Aaron Colite. Nick questions him. Aaron Colite says he was out hunting, saw a man being attacked, and tried to save his life. But Nick, taking a look around, opens Colite’s freezer, then asks,

"I just have one more question for you. How long have you been storing gall bladders with your ice-cream?"

Next, Catherine tells Nick that the bear’s blood was sent to 'Tox' and "Turns out there were elevated levels of Ketamine in its system."

We see a rhinoceros grazing. Then we hear a shot and see him struggling to stand. We flash to Catherine and Nick watching the screen. She is obviously shaken – interesting, given what she sees all day long in her job.

Nick: "Well you got that right. Point is, you don’t have to go to Africa to hunt wild game anymore, if you've got the money Africa comes to you."

Because some companies have begun embedding their photocopy machines with serial numbers that are visible only under a special light, the forged broker documents can be traced. They are traced to the copy machine at the zoo.

Back at the zoo, Tracy is interviewed by Catherine and Warrick: "Mr Tracy, tell us about canned hunts."

Tracy: "Uh, a wild animal is released into a controlled area where a hunter pays a fee to kill it. The promoters guarantee a trophy, so, no kill, no pay. They’re illegal in Nevada. Is that what happened to my bear?"

He is told that the evidence placed Aaron Colite, who used to work at the zoo, at the crime scene. But Colite had quit the zoo months before the new copier was installed, meaning somebody currently at the zoo was in on the job.

Catherine says, "We suspect that Aaron figured out a way to make a buck and he asked for your help."

We see, on the screen, the investigators' version of what happened: Tracy and Aaron Colite urge Hollis to shoot the bear.

"Mr Hollis probably thought he had killed the bear, and he raced over to claim his trophy."

We see the bear attack Hollis. Then Aaron Colite shoots the bear with his handgun.

Catherine and Warrick look at Tracy's leg and find a wound consistent with the patch of torn trouser pants found at the crime scene. Then Warrick says to him:

"We subpoenaed Aaron’s bank records. Rod Hollis sent Aaron a check for $16,000. Aaron sent you a check for $8,000 dollars. Fifty-fifty split."

Catherine: "You are looking at grand larceny and obtaining property under false pretenses."

Catherine: "I am recommending to the DA that he add another charge -- second degree murder, for the death of the hunter."

Again, I ask you to please thank the show for its focus on animal cruelty issues. Loads of positive feedback will encourage more animal friendly coverage in the future. The show takes feedback at:

The front page of the Thursday, February 10, International Herald Tribune had a disturbing story headed, "Americans going to dogs; Fox hunting gains ground, unlike in Britain."

It describes hunt preparations, notes "... And yes, his was northern Maryland, not Gloucestershire" and tells us "While fox hunters in England and Wales face a hugely controversial ban -- effective at midnight next Thursday unless overturned by a British court that heard an appeal this week -- the sport is flourishing on this side of the Atlantic."

"There are 169 recognized hunts in North America, up from 144 a decade ago, said Dennis Foster, executive director of the Masters of Foxhounds Association of America. The American number is not terribly far behind England's 200 hunts, though America has nothing like the million people who literally follow hunts there. So far, there have been few public protests like those in Britain that have mobilized hundreds of thousands on both sides...But animal-protection groups, spurred partly by the hubbub in Britain, are taking a closer look."

"I can't think of a more cruel way for an animal to die: to be pursued to the point of exhaustion, then ripped apart. And we're doing it as a form of entertainment. That's the definition of a blood sport."

The article is balanced, noting that "Elkridge-Harford has access to a luxurious swath of terrain, nearly 150 square miles, or about 400 square kilometers, much owned by club members or their friends. They constantly negotiate for access, fiercely resist development and sometimes join together to buy land. 'There wouldn't be all the fox we chase if it wasn't for fox-hunting,' Smalley said. The territory harbors a wealth of wildlife, from ever-present deer to eagles. With few natural predators around, fox populations have boomed, constrained mainly by mange, rabies and collisions with cars.

It unfortunately gives the impression that the hunt is a big game to the fox. One hunter talks about foxes who might "run right over their den two times, then the third time, when you can tell they're getting tired -- boom! -- they pop into the den. They'll play with you." One could think of many reasons (young inside?) that a fox, with dogs in pursuit, would choose not to enter the den until she absolutely had to.

It provides a great opportunity for letters in this respected international paper, against any blood sports. The International Herald Tribune takes letters at: letters@iht.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

The Thursday, February 10 edition of America's most widely distributed newspaper, USA Today, has a story in the "Money" section (Pg 5B) headed, "Mercedes sets no-leather option. Move comes at urging of animal rights group."

"Mercedes-Benz is offering to shed the skins when it comes to leather seats on its ritziest models in the name of animal rights, but other car companies aren't ready to follow.

"Mercedes has decided to make its full line of vehicles available with synthetic interiors if a customer requests it, under pressure from the advocacy group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

"Until now, its most-expensive vehicles have come with leather as the only alternative.

"Other carmakers say they have no plans to make a change for a simple reason: Skin is in. Giving up leather would chap the hides of most car buyers."

This move by Mercedes is an encouraging indication that those who make compassionate life-style choices are starting to be viewed as part of the mainstream, and, perhaps most importantly, as a market to which it is worthwhile to cater. And the story presents a nice opportunity for letters to the editor of the US's largest paper, supporting that life-style. USA Today takes letters at:

Why not also take just a minute to thank Mercedes for the move? The company has been under pressure from animal rights activists; positive feedback would surely be welcome. The company takes comments at: http://www.mbusa.com/servlet/Miscqst

The Humane Society of the United States tells us that tonight, Thursday, February 10, the hit series CSI, on CBS, will expose canned hunting -- the shooting of exotic or other animals on fenced in farms for the purpose of gaining "trophies."

Though I would never oppose campaigns against canned hunting, as a caveat to this alert I will mention that I fear those campaigns can tacitly support the impression that other sport-hunting, not behind fences, such as that on public lands and nature preserves, is incomparable -- perhaps even good clean all-American fun. Therefore, though I think positive audience feedback for animal friendly programming is valuable - priceless - I hesitate to ask for it regarding this show until we have seen the end result, until we are sure that the evil of canned hunting is not juxtaposed against the beauty of a wild hunt. Watch if you can, and if the message is truly as animal friendly as we expect it to be, please send CSI a big thank you.

I will note that CSI has an excellent history in this regard: On one episode, in the show's first season, a female skeleton was found, decapitated and with its hands cut off. The skeleton turned out to be that of a gorilla. The show revealed the horror of the illegal bushmeat and exotic animal export trade. It ended with one of CSI's lead characters, Sara (played by Jorja Fox), an ethical vegetarian on the show, saying the blessing for the dead over the gorilla's grave.

Click here
to download
your free viewer's
guide now.



		Canned hunt patrons pay thousands of dollars to kill animals like this who are lined up for easy shooting. Stop canned hunts. Click here.

Dear Friend,

Tomorrow night, America's #1 rated TV drama, CSI, will feature a storyline about one of the ugliest forms of animal cruelty, canned hunting. Canned hunting is the killing of a fenced-in animal who has no chance of escape, for the sole purpose of obtaining a trophy. That's right: animals -- often tame, exotic mammals -- are put into an enclosure for rich individuals to "hunt." It is as horrible as you can imagine.
Learn more about this outrageous "sport" here.

In the CSI episode, which airs Thursday, February 10, on CBS (check your local listings for exact times), characters investigate the killing of a Kodiak bear found in the Nevada woods. Evidence leads them to discover that the bear was killed during an illegal canned hunt.

This is critical public exposure for an animal protection issue that deserves serious attention -- and you can help to make an even bigger impact.

1. Take action to stop canned hunts now. U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently introduced the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act, which aims to halt the interstate traffic of exotic animals for the purpose of killing or injuring them for entertainment or trophy collecting. Contact your U.S. senators today and ask them to co-sponsor this legislation

2. Tune into CSI on Thursday, February 10. Take this unprecedented opportunity to educate someone you know about canned hunts: Invite them over to watch the program, and use our free viewer's guide about canned hunting to let them know the tragic truth behind this television drama. Then urge them to join you in taking action to stop canned hunts. Click here for your viewer's guide (PDF).

3. Spread the word. The more people who know about this issue, tune into CSI, and take action, the closer we will come to STOPPING canned hunting. Click here to tell five friends to tune in, take action, and learn more.

Thank you for all you do on behalf of animals every day, and be sure to tune into CSI on Thursday, February 10!

Sincerely,

Wayne A. Pacelle
President & CEO, Humane Society of the United States

There is upsetting news from the UK this week, but we can be thankful that it is out: A Tuesday, February 8, headline in The Guardian reads, "Lab monkeys 'scream with fear' in tests." (Pg 8.)

"Secret documents describing how some monkeys can scream in misery, fear and anger during experiments were produced in the high court yesterday as evidence that the laws intended to protect laboratory animals are being flouted.

"Excerpts from Cambridge University internal papers - one of several sites where primate research is carried out - give laboratory technicians and scientists advice on how to deal with problems during and after experiments. Presented in court by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), they describe occasions when primates are 'screaming, trying to get out of the box, defecating', and state: 'This is an angry animal.'"

I think most people, not blinded by investments in the vivisection industry, will be shocked at the suggestion that fellow primates screaming and defecating are angry rather than terrorized and terrified.

"Scientists and technicians are advised in the documents to 'punish' the bad habits of the monkeys, stating that these bad habits include the normal self-grooming.

"Richard Drabble QC, for the BUAV, told the high court yesterday that the documents contradict the general public perception that animals are well cared for and protected under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

"Making an application for judicial review of the legality of lab practices, he also alleged that brain-damaged monkeys at Cambridge were not provided with the 24-hour veterinary care which the government's own guidance states is necessary.

"David Thomas, the solicitor for BUAV, said: "Cambridge staff work 9-5pm, so animals who had just been brain damaged were left overnight without veterinary attention.

"'Some were found to be dead in the morning, some were found to be in a worse condition. Yet there is an obligation of licence holders to keep suffering to a minimum. The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on.'"

Its significance increases when one takes into account the UK's stance that its laboratory animals fall under the world's strictest animal welfare guidelines.

The story, making it clear that the scientist's assurances of humane treatment mean nothing, calls for letters that call for an end to vivisection. The Guardian takes letters at: letters@guardian.co.uk and instructs,

"We do not publish letters where only an email address is supplied; please include a full postal address and a reference to the relevant article. If you do not want your email address published, please say so. We may edit letters."

There is a story on the front page of the Monday, February 7, Chicago Tribune headed "Village in Poland clashes with U.S. pork giant;

America's top hog producer wants to create `the Iowa of Europe'; residents gag on transformation." It discusses the nightmare people go through when modern pork producers move into their neighborhoods.

It tells us, "Animex is the Polish subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, the largest hog producer and pork processor in the United States, but residents of this small village in western Poland had no clue about what they were in for until a mountain of pig manure began growing about 100 yards from the local elementary school. The youngsters gagged and their parents fumed, but it appears that Smithfield's industrial-scale "piglet nursery" is here to stay."

We read that Smithfield plans to make Poland the Iowa of Europe, and "That is not necessarily good news for Poland. Smithfield has a less than sterling environmental record. In 1997 it was fined $12.6 million for thousands of violations in Virginia. Its slaughterhouse operations in North Carolina have caused huge fish kills in local rivers. The state recently declared a moratorium on new hog factories."

"Most people do not want a hog factory in their neighborhood because it generates tons of manure filled with harmful chemicals. One way of disposing of the manure is to mix it with straw and silo it, and then spread it on fields. Another is to let the liquid slurry accumulate in toxic lagoons. Either way, it smells awful.

"In Wieckowice, where the pig farm and the village of 700 sit cheek by jowl, Animex decided to pile the manure close to the elementary school. That caused some children to faint or vomit. After residents raised a stink about the stench, Animex moved the manure mountain to the far end of its property, about a mile from a pristine lake that is part of a nature reserve. Children who swam in the lake developed eye infections. Other residents said the water smelled odd."

"Animal-rights organizations also have faulted Smithfield and others for their treatment of pigs."

"Local critics have not been allowed inside the farm in Wieckowice, but activists--among them Robert Kennedy Jr., who as head of an environmental group Riverkeeper has mounted a crusade against Smithfield--have scaled the fences at other Smithfield facilities in Poland and were dismayed by what they found.

"'Five thousand squealing pigs were crammed into strawless compartments inside the recently opened pig factory near the town of Szczecinek in the northwestern Polish province Zachodnio-Pomorskie,' Kennedy wrote in a recent report for 'The Ecologist' an environmental newsletter.

"'Back outside, effluent from cement cesspits had over-flowed sending a small stream of brown, stinking liquid into the lake below, which had then frozen over. In a large plastic bin we found 20 dead pigs,' Kennedy wrote."

The full article offers more details about the Polish town's fight against Smithfield. You can read it on line at:

It presents a great opportunity for appreciative, pro-veggie, letters to the editor, that detail the way our society treats animals being raised for human food. You'll find great information and photos at http://www.FactoryFarming.com

The February 7 edition of Newsweek, (on stands till the afternoon of the 7th) has an article headed "A New Range War: A change in the law, and wild horses face slaughter." (Page 51.)

It opens, "Corraled in a federal holding pen at Palomino Valley, Nev., a buckskin mare with the number 9598 cold-branded in code on its neck suddenly faces an uncertain future. When the 12-year-old was rounded up in November as part of a federal program to humanely control the mustang population in the West, it looked as if it would be relocated to a grassy farm in Oklahoma or Kansas. But that all changed weeks later. Thanks to a controversial revision of the 1971 law protecting wild horses and burros, the mare could be sold, killed and butchered....The revision forces the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell 'without limitation' every captured horse that is 10 or older or has proved unadoptable. The new rule applies to 8,400 horses in captivity, and many more in the future."

We read: "About 50,000 domestic horses are killed every year at three U.S. slaughterhouses, mostly to be shipped to France and other countries where horse meat is socially acceptable food. A bill that would ban the slaughter of any horse in the United States for human consumption will be introduced in Congress this week."

The Newsweek article lets us know the basis for the distressing revision -- the power of the cattle industry:

"The mustangs' current troubles come thanks in part to another Western icon: cattle ranchers. There are currently 37,000 mustangs sharing public rangelands with several million head of cattle. The result has been overgrazing, exacerbated by six years of drought. To restore the land, the BLM has cut the number of cattle allowed, and ranchers say the horses and burros have to be pared substantially."

It presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor on any aspect of the way our society treats members of other species. Newsweek takes letters at letters@newsweek.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

The Magazine section of the Sunday, February 6, Washington Post has a lengthy fluff piece on canned hunting, headed "They Shoot Zebras, Don't They? These days, you don't have to go to the African veldt to hunt gazelle, kudu and zebra. Set your sights on Texas." (Page W21)

It includes a couple of quotes from animal rights activists -- a couple of lines in a 4,300 piece on the sport.

"As the men bumped away from camp in the four-wheel-drive pickup, over rutted dirt roads and through tiny streams, the sun revealed open plains around them, dotted with scrawny oak trees. Paul Tyjewski, Paul Royce and their guide, Kal Katzer, began glimpsing exotic wildlife gathering under the trees, using the cover of daybreak to feed before predators arose. Only, in this instance, the animals' instincts had failed them, since the predators were wide-eyed, eager and getting ever closer with their 7mm Remingtons. In one area, skittish kudu, African antelopes with twisting horns rising two feet out of their skulls, hopped from tree to tree. Nearby, aoudads -- massive versions of sheep from the Barbary rocks of North Africa, with horns curving out and back from their skulls -- playfully butted heads. Katzer pointed out ibex, exotic goats with thick, scaly horns.

Seeing these graceful animals in their native Africa has its own power. But the fact that the group was taking them in -- and hunting them -- near Junction, Tex., only two hours from urban San Antonio, made the moment even more remarkable."

And you can send (polite) comments to the editor, about the article or about hunting in general, to letters@washpost.com . The paper instructs, "Please do not send attachments; they will not be read....Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers....Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments."

The Sunday, February 6, New York Times has an editorial headed, "What Meat Means." It follows a January 25 article, headed "Human Rights Group Criticizes Meat Packing Industry." (You can read an abstract of the original article, or purchase it, on line at: http://tinyurl.com/4bxlh )

"Most Americans do not want to know how the meat they eat is produced, if only so they can continue to eat it. Nearly every aspect of meat production in America is disturbing, from the way animals are raised, to inadequate inspection of the final product. When it comes to what happens in the slaughterhouse, most of us mentally avert our eyes. Yet in the past decade, the handling of livestock on their way to the killing floor has actually been one of the parts of the business that has improved most significantly. What is most alarming at the slaughterhouse is not what happens to the animals - they have already met their fate. It is what happens to the humans who work there."

"A large slaughterhouse is the truly industrial end of industrial farming. It is a factory for disassembly. Its high line speeds place enormous pressure on the workers hired to take apart the carcasses coming down the line. And because the basic job of the line is cutting flesh - hard, manual labor - the dangers are very high for meat workers, whose flesh is every bit as vulnerable as that of the pork or beef or chicken passing by.

The editorial discusses the dangers to workers, who tend to be immigrants, and who receive little or no compensation for injuries. It suggests that state and federal laws must be enforced to protect them, and comments:

"Unfortunately, those laws at present are too weak and too riddled with loopholes to provide the regulations needed to increase worker safety and improve workers' rights. A systematic regulatory look at the meat industry, with an eye to toughening standards, is desperately needed."

It is terrific to see slaughterhouses come under scrutiny. But it is a shame to see the suffering of animals written off with the suggestion that things have improved significantly for them, and with the comment that the animals are already dead during the time that workers are most likely to be hurt. Though there have been improvements in the last few years, the editorial imparts a sense of comfort about animal treatment based on false information. In 2001, the Washington Post ran a front page story headed, "They die piece by piece." (By Joby Warrick, April 10) that discussed conditions in the late nineties, and the extent of the improvements. I will share a little of the article as a contrast to today's New York Times piece.

The Post article describes animals still mooing and looking around as they make their way down the slaughter line. It tells us:

"Under a 23-year-old federal law, slaughtered cattle and hogs first must be 'stunned' -- rendered insensible to pain -- with a blow to the head or an electric shock. But at overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with cruel consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses, ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated establishments such as the sprawling IBP Inc. plant here where Moreno works."

It tells us that enforcement can be lax: "For example, the government took no action against a Texas beef company that was cited 22 times in 1998 for violations that included chopping hooves off live cattle. In another case, agency supervisors failed to take action on multiple complaints of animal cruelty at a Florida beef plant and fired an animal health technician for reporting the problems to the Humane Society."

"I complained to everyone -- I said, 'Look, they're skinning live cows in there.' Always it was the same answer: 'We know it's true. But there's nothing we can do about it.' "

The article describes cows being hung on hooks while conscious, and the horrifying treatment of pigs:

"Hogs, unlike cattle, are dunked in tanks of hot water after they are stunned to soften the hides for skinning. As a result, a botched slaughter condemns some hogs to being scalded and drowned. Secret videotape from an Iowa pork plant shows hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the water."

And it describes undercover video taken at the IBP slaughterhouse in which, "Some cattle, dangling by a leg from the plant's overhead chain, twist and arch their backs as though trying to right themselves. Close-ups show blinking reflexes, an unmistakable sign of a conscious brain, according to guidelines approved by the American Meat Institute."

In 1996-97, "One finding was a high failure rate among beef plants that use stunning devices known as 'captive-bolt' guns. Of the plants surveyed, only 36 percent earned a rating of 'acceptable' or better, meaning cattle were knocked unconscious with a single blow at least 95 percent of the time."

Then, "Based on the data collected by McDonald's auditors, the portion of beef plants scoring 'acceptable' or better climbed to 90 percent in 1999. Some workers and inspectors are skeptical of the McDonald's numbers, and Grandin said the industry's performance dropped slightly last year after auditors stopped giving notice of some inspections."

So according to the 2001 Washington Post article, the significant improvements (noted in the current New York Times editorial) do not pertain to at least ten percent of plants, and it is considered "acceptable," at the other 90%, for five percent of animals to be hung and sliced up without being stunned. Five percent is many thousands of animals every day -- one in twenty pieces of meat consumed in this country.

Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two pieces is that the Washington Post article makes the connection the New York Times editorial practically negates:

"When that happens, it's not only animals that suffer. Industry trade groups acknowledge that improperly stunned animals contribute to worker injuries in an industry that already has the nation's highest rate of job-related injuries and illnesses -- about 27 percent a year. At some plants, 'dead' animals have inflicted so many broken limbs and teeth that workers wear chest pads and hockey masks."

The New York Times editorial, while focusing on human suffering, provides an opportunity for those of us committed to making sure that the suffering of other species is not ignored. We can detail "the way animals are raised," mentioned briefly in the piece (see http://www.FactoryFarming.com for details on that issue) or we can draw the link between worker injuries and horrendous cruelty to animals. And we can praise plant-based diets. When writing, it is useful to keep in mind that studies have shown that newspapers, including the prestigious New York Times, are far more likely to publish letters that praise rather than criticize their content. Therefore it is more useful to praise today's editorial, making gentle corrections, than to slam it.

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

The Friday, February 4, San Francisco Chronicle has a front page story headed, "Park Service wants to eliminate exotic deer at Point Reyes"

"Exotic deer have worn out their welcome at Point Reyes National Seashore, and the National Park Service has decided it's time to wipe them out.

"The service released a plan Thursday to deal with the hundreds of nonnative fallow and axis deer trampling the park's meadows and woodlands. The plan includes several options, and the deer are likely to find most of them objectionable, since the goal is their elimination.

"The alternatives range from doing nothing to shooting the deer. The park service's preferred option involves killing most of them and treating the remainder with a special vaccine that would sterilize does for up to three years. Using those methods, all the deer would be eliminated by 2017.

"Fallow deer and axis deer have been a part of West Marin's fauna since 1948, when some were purchased from the San Francisco Zoo by a Point Reyes landowner and released with the expectation that they would provide enhanced hunting opportunities.

"But most hopes for hunting the hefty ungulates -- both species can tip the scales at 200 pounds -- were dashed when Point Reyes became national park property in 1962. Hunting is forbidden in national parks.

"For years, rifle-toting park staffers periodically culled the herds. But that stopped about five years ago, in large part because of public discomfort with the program.

There are amusing quotes from "Ann Stewart, who with her daughter, Amanda Wisby, runs Angus cattle on both family land and about 2,500 acres leased from the park service."

She says, "They tear out yards and yards of fencing. It's really a major expense. My heart really goes out to (park staffers). As soon as they try to do anything on this, they're going to have a whole bunch of people like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) after them."

"Stephanie Boyles, a wildlife biologist with PETA, said her organization favors nonlethal means for exotic animal control as a matter of course."

"There is now a vaccine undergoing field trials that is specifically designed for cervids (deer). Given that it's a public agency, we think the National Park Service should be at the forefront of participating in these trials. Point Reyes would be the perfect place for it."

"They've been there for decades, they didn't ask to be there, and they're just making the best of their situation. We need to approach this with some compassion."

Sadly, we learn, "Gordon Bennett, chairman for the Marin group of the Sierra Club, supports the park service's position. He said the exotic deer problem at Point Reyes was caused by humans, and humans must take the responsibility for solving it."

And you can send a letter to the editor, ensuring that the voice of compassion is part of the public dialogue, to letters@sfchronicle.com.

The paper advises, "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication."

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.

The Thursday, February 3, St Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) has a front page story headed, "Animal dealer pays record fine." It imparts loads of information about Class B dealers and the canine vivisection industry.

"A northwest Arkansas animal dealer who for years sold thousands of cats and dogs to medical research facilities, including the University of Missouri at Columbia, has agreed to pay the largest-ever penalty for violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act.

"C.C. Baird and his wife, Patsy, paid the $262,700 fine last week as part of an agreement settling a civil case brought by the U.S. Department of Agriculture..."

The complaint accused the Bairds of violations including "severe mistreatment and neglect of a multitude of animals." And we learn, "They also were charged with buying animals of suspicious and possibly stolen origins and falsifying animal health certificates."

We read, "About 125 dogs were seized and handed over to animal adoption groups. The seized animals forced the USDA to take the unusual step of asking owners of recently lost dogs to contact the agency. Hundreds of inquiries came in, and the agency matched 'a dozen or more' owners with their lost pets, said USDA spokesman Jim Rogers. The animals 'had somehow gotten into his hands,' through false pretensions, miscommunication or theft, Rogers said."

It is disturbing to learn that as far back as 1995, Baird "was charged with failing to keep detailed records of how animals were bought and sold. He also was accused of acquiring 'random-source dogs' -- a term to describe dogs that cannot be traced to legitimate dealers and may have been stolen."

"Selling dogs and cats to medical research facilities proved to be lucrative for the Bairds, federal authorities said. In 1999, one of their busiest recent years, the Bairds bought 3,300 animals, sold 3,115 animals and grossed a minimum of $100,000, according to the civil complaint.

"The Bairds' clients are said to have included research universities across the country, among them the University of Colorado's Health Sciences Center, Oregon State University and the University of Missouri at Columbia.

"Mizzou officials confirmed Wednesday that they had recently bought dogs from C.C. Baird for use in teaching and research. They said they stopped buying only when the kennels closed as part of the civil consent decision last month....The school buys from USDA-certified animal dealers and does not stop purchases because of federal charges. 'We're not going to react to allegations,' said school spokesman Christian Basi."

"The Bairds, and C.C. Baird in particular, have been the targets of animal rights groups for years. One group, California-based Last Chance for Animals, has been visiting Bairds' operations in northwest Arkansas for at least eight years. The group has sent federal authorities shots of undercover videotape they said proved dogs and cats were mistreated. But USDA attorney Carroll said her office's investigation did not rely on the group's work and she never viewed the videos."

Hundreds of families whose dogs disappeared in Missouri in the last few years might be upset to learn the USDA had not only failed, for years, to investigate properly, but had not even viewed video taken by an outside source.

And you can send a letter to the editor about any aspect of our society's treatment of animals that this story brings to mind. The Post-Dispatch takes letters at: letters@post-dispatch.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

Al Sharpton has joined PETA's Kentucky Fried Cruelty Campaign. The headline in the Wednesday, February 2, New York Times reads, "Sharpton Joins With an Animal Activist Group in Calling for a Boycott of KFC." (Business section, Pg C8)

"Starting today, Mr. Sharpton is joining forces with the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to urge a boycott of KFC, which is owned by Yum Brands of Louisville, Ky. Mr. Sharpton and PETA want the fast food chain to require its chicken suppliers to put in place new standards for the treatment of the 750 million chickens they process for KFC every year in the United States. The rap mogul Russell Simmons is also joining the Sharpton campaign.

''"If we give our money to KFC, we're paying for a life of misery for some of God's most helpless creatures,' says Mr. Sharpton in an eight-minute video that will be shown outside KFC's around the country.

"PETA has been waging a campaign against KFC for two years. The organization was eager to enlist Mr. Sharpton because KFC has many stores in largely black neighborhoods and in late 2003 KFC executives told investors they were making an increased effort to market to blacks.

"Mr. Sharpton and PETA are demanding that KFC force its chicken suppliers, like Pilgrim's Pride and Perdue, to give chickens more room in factory barns and to make use of a process that puts birds to sleep with nitrogen before they are killed. They are also asking KFC to stop its suppliers from forcing such rapid, hormone-driven growth that the birds crumple under their own weight."

We are told she says "as many as 6 percent of birds suffer broken wings or legs when workers pack them into crates and onto trucks."

Since many people avoid red meat at least partly because of greater compassion for mammals, it is heartening to see such information, about the horrendous suffering of chickens, in the New York Times. Unfortunately the story does not mention that chickens are currently exempt from the federal Humane Slaughter Act.

The story presents a great opportunity for pro-veggie letters. The New York Times takes letters at: letters@nytimes.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.