APRIL 2005

CHICAGO TRIBUNE ON ANIMAL LAUGHTER -- 4/1/05

Today, Friday April 1, there is much distressing news about the seal slaughter in Canada, but also a delightful report in the Chicago Tribune reflecting progress with regard to the way our society views members of other species. It is headed "Animals enjoy good laugh too, scientists say." (Page 11.)

It tells us, "Joy and laughter, they say, are proving not to be uniquely human traits. Roughhousing chimpanzees emit characteristic pants of excitement, their version of 'ha-ha-ha' limited only by their anatomy and lack of breath control, researchers contend. Dogs have their own sound to spur other dogs to play, and recordings of the sound can dramatically reduce stress levels in shelters and kennels, according to the scientist who discovered it. Even laboratory rats have been shown to chirp delightedly above the range of human hearing when wrestling with each other or being tickled by a keeper--the same vocalizations they make before receiving morphine or having sex....

"The research suggests that studying animal emotions, once a scientific taboo, seems to be moving rapidly into the mainstream....

"During human laughter, the dopamine reward circuits in the brain light up. When researchers neurochemically tickled those same areas in rat brains, the rats chirped. Rat humor remains to be investigated, but if it exists, a prime component will be slapstick, Panksepp speculated. 'Young rats, in particular, have a marvelous sense of fun.'"

The full article, which goes into the different ways members of different species laugh, can be found on line at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0504010071apr01,1,7168657.story OR on the Florida Sun Sentinel website at: http://tinyurl.com/6qo7o

It presents a nice opportunity for letters about the way our society treats members of other species -- rats for example.

The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform

The Sun Sentinel takes letters at: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-letterseditor.customform

CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL AGAINST FOIE GRAS 4/2/05

This weekend we see a positive sign with regard to the mainstream media's attitude to the cruelty of our food supply. On Saturday, April 2, a Chicago Tribune editorial (the newspaper's official opinion) came down against foie gras. The piece, headed "The foie gras fight" (Pg 22) discusses the dispute over foie gras between two chefs covered in the March 29 front page story "Liver and Let Live."

Then it discusses the production of foie gras, and ends with:

"The real nub of the foie gras debate was contained in Tribune reporter Mark Caro's story about the food fight. Caro described the fattening period, in which 'a tube is inserted down the duck's hard esophagus, and a corn meal is released for a couple of seconds, two or three times a day. Foie gras producers note that ducks lack gag reflexes and that waterfowl are designed to digest large portions of food, such as whole fish.'

"The way food gets from field to table often makes for uncomfortable reading, especially in a modern society in which most people have little contact with farms and slaughterhouses. But inhumane treatment of animals should be unacceptable in America. And this does sound inhumane.

"To many palates, foie gras may be delicious. But the way it is produced still turns the stomach."

You can read the whole piece on line at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0504020083apr02,1,1969337.story

It gives us a great opportunity for appreciative letters that discuss any aspect of "the way food gets from field to table."

The Chicago Tribune takes letters at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform

NEW YORK TIMES FRONT PAGE ON OBESITY DRUG RESEARCH 4/3/05

The Sunday, April New York Times has a front page story headed, "Drug Makers Race to Cash In on Fight Against Fat."

We read:

"From pharmaceutical giants to tiny start-ups, the industry is spending billions of dollars developing obesity drugs. An estimated 200 possibilities are now in the research pipeline or under test among patients at dozens of clinics...

"Some drug makers say they are tackling fat in response to public health warnings of a national obesity epidemic -- one that has been linked to diabetes, heart disease and other conditions and now accounts for more than $100 billion of the United States' $1.8 trillion annual medical bill. The obese are defined as those with a so-called body mass index of 30 or more. By that measure, obese people now make up one-third of the adult population.

"But many drug industry analysts see a potentially even bigger market if such a drug also catches on among the more than 60 percent of adults in this country who are statistically overweight, those with a body mass index of 25 or more. Many experts also see a likelihood -- some would say danger -- that such a drug might appeal to millions who are by no means fat but would like to drop a few pounds."

We are reminded that "the fen-phen prescription drug combination was popular during the mid-1990's, until it was found to damage patients' hearts."

And we are warned:

"Despite the industry's risks, some medical experts worry that drug makers' big investments in obesity research will prompt companies to seek the broadest possible payback through the same type of aggressive promotion to doctors and consumers that helped turn the arthritis drugs Celebrex and Vioxx into widely prescribed general painkillers. Those drugs were taken by tens of millions of people before their safety risks became clear.

We read about a hairdresser who supposedly "tried everything" such as "Weight Watchers. A diet of cabbage soup. Even a four-day regimen of cauliflower, beets and hot dogs."

And we read:

"Scientists seem to agree that, while some people are programmed to be thin and others are destined to be overweight, obesity is partly an environmental condition. Most Americans work in sedentary jobs, arriving and leaving via door-to-door transportation. At the same time, they are constantly confronted with cheap, high-calorie food."

We also read about animal testing for obesity drugs:

"Researchers at Rockefeller University in Manhattan thought they had cracked the code in 1994 with leptin, a protein found to be lacking in some obese rats. When injected with leptin, the rats became thin. Amgen, the big biotechnology company, invested millions in leptin research, but the rodent results could not be duplicated in humans."

Indeed each one of the 200 possibilities now in research, if it looks at all promising, will be tested on animals.

At the close of the article we read: "Articles in this series will periodically examine causes, costs and possible cures for obesity, one of the nation's major preoccupations. An audio report by Stephanie Saul and additional photographs are online at nytimes.com/business."

The article and series open the door for letters from people who stay slim and healthy on plant-based diets.

You can read the full article on line at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/business/03fat.html  and send a letter to the editor 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.

MIAMI HERALD FRONT PAGE ON PET STORE PUPPY MILL SALES  4/3/05

The Sunday, April 3 Miami Herald (Broward edition) has a front page story headed "Sick Puppies Have Their Day; 30 Families Claim They Were Sold Dogs With Afflictions; Broward Lawsuit."

It focuses on "Puppy Palace" and "30 families in Broward and Palm Beach counties who have filed suit against the stores and owner Judy Norford."

We read:

"West Palm Beach attorney Marcy LaHart, arguing for the plaintiffs, said many of her clients have spent thousands of dollars on veterinary care to treat problems that were there from the start. 'Puppy Palace resells puppy-mill puppies to consumers, knowing that many of the puppies suffer from congenital defects and/or contagious diseases,' LaHart wrote in her complaint....LaHart says her clients are seeking more than just restitution for veterinary bills: They want the stores to close. To spread the word, LaHart has set up a website, www.stoppuppypalace.com "

You'll find the whole article on line at:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/11301616.htm 

It presents a good opportunity for letters to the editor against purchasing dogs, and in favor of adoption. A good resource on puppy mills and their link to pet stores is www.stoppuppymills.com . And PETA has a good fact sheet covering companion animal overpopulation issues at: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=29

The Miami Herald takes letters at:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/contact_us/feedback_np1/

TIME MAGAZINE ON CANADA SEAL HUNT BOYCOTT 4/5/05 edition

Time Magazine has covered the impending boycott on Canadian Seafood, in an article in the April 4 edition (Pg 17) headed "Save the Seals by Skipping the Scallops?" It is short, so I will paste it here in full -- and you can find it on line at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1042490,00.html  :

"The same activists who helped introduce the world to dolphin-safe tuna are about to take consumers on a similarly gruesome guilt trip. In an effort to abolish Canada's government-sanctioned seal hunts, in which pups as young as 12 days are fair game to get clubbed to death, the Humane Society of the United States and other animal-rights groups will launch a campaign this week to pressure Americans to boycott all seafood from our neighbor to the north. With a kickoff scheduled for March 29, the official starting date of Canada's seal hunt, the Humane Society is printing tens of thousands of bumper stickers and pledge forms to be distributed at supermarkets and restaurants across the U.S. And thanks to unrelated legislation, the U.S. will begin enforcing a law on April 4 that requires labels on fresh and frozen seafood to identify its country of origin."

"As the seal population has climbed back up to historic heights, so too has the demand for pelts in a few countries. Most of the hunt is conducted in economically depressed Newfoundland by some 4,000 off-season fishermen. 'This is an important part of their income,' says Geoff Regan, Canada's Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. But animal-rights activists are betting that because the U.S. buys nearly two-thirds of Canada's exported seafood, a boycott will inspire the industry to end the hunt. They also contend that Newfoundland, a former whaling hub that now makes a bundle from whale watching, can overcome the economic disruption. 'That kind of cultural shift has happened before,' says Canadian environmental activist Rick Smith. 'We can do the same with seals."

You can submit a letter in favor of the boycott, and in favor of plant-based diets, at:

http://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.html 

WASHINGTON POST FRONT PAGE ON THE TRAPPING OF WOLVES IN ALASKA 4/4/05

The sadness of trapping is personalized for us today in a front page Washington Post story headed, "Alaska's Studied Wolf Pack Threatened.

State Officials Resist Calls to Expand Protected Territory."

It opens:

"Lying alone and listless on a snow-covered ridge, the large male wolf appeared injured, probably from a trap. Blood stained the snow near his front paws. Circling above in a single-engine airplane, wildlife biologist Gordon Haber found it difficult to maintain his composure. For nearly 40 years, he has been observing a family of wolves, whose current leader was the lethargic alpha male down below him in the snow.

That family, which lives in Denali National Park and is often described as the longest-studied, most-photographed group of wolves in the world, is now at risk. In the past two months, trappers operating just outside the park's northeastern border have picked off two senior females in the 11-member group. For weeks, the alpha male and his new mate have been separated from each other and from six younger members of the pack.

"'It's so senseless,' Haber shouted over the aircraft noise. 'I'm not sure what is worse: the animals being killed or all the so-called experts allowing it to happen."

We read:

"Trapping the Toklat wolves also raises questions about the ethical treatment of animals that for decades have been cosseted inside a park, where they have been regarded as prime tourist attractions and have learned to associate people with harmless curiosity -- not with the slow, lethal torment of a trap."

And:

"In February, Haber, whose work is funded by an animal rights group and whose views often annoy state and federal wildlife experts, asked the Alaska Board of Game to stop wolf trapping in a narrow wedge of state land that juts into the national park's northeastern corner. That is where the Toklat wolves, wandering out of the park in search of caribou, have been caught in traps in recent months. But the board, which several years ago did create a small no-trap buffer in that area, has refused to expand it."

The response of Mike Fleagle, the board's chairman, is interesting:

"We don't manage wolves for their safety and livelihood and whatnot. We feel that wolves shouldn't be treated individually. Sure, wolves are complex, and sure, they have a pretty interesting social structure, but the bottom line is Alaska is crawling with wolves. We manage for population."

Of course, the popular Toklat wolves suffer no more than any other trapped wolves, or than the millions of animals trapped every year in the United States for their fur. The article opens the door for letters about various aspects of the way we treat members of other species.

It is a long and interesting article, which you can read on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23709-2005Apr3.html 

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."

NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE AND EDITORIAL ANDn SEATTLE POST INTELLIGENCER FRONT PAGE ARTICLE ON FOIE GRAS 4/5/05

Foie gras continues to make major news today, Monday April 4, with an article in the New York Times, and editorial in that paper that tells us that the foie gras debate might be "another example of how far the animal-rights cause has come in from the fringe," and a detailed piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Food & Dining section.

The New York Times article, "Demonstrators Push Foie Gras Off of Menus" (Pg 16 or pg 22 in national edition) opens:

"At Hurley's restaurant in hip Northwest Portland, foie gras is not on the menu. You have to ask for it. The restaurant is among several in Portland that have removed foie gras from their menus because of protests by animal rights activists, who have gathered outside restaurants with gruesome images of dead and diseased ducks they say are the result of force-feeding techniques used to produce foie gras, which is fattened duck liver.

"Opponents say the practice should be outlawed, and persuaded the California Legislature last year to pass a bill that will ban foie gras in 2012 unless producers can prove the technique is humane. Legislation also is being considered in Oregon, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts that would make it a criminal act even to possess foie gras. Activists recently persuaded about 10 restaurants in Pittsburgh to stop serving foie gras.

"In the making of foie gras, ducks have a stainless steel tube inserted into their throats twice a day for two weeks and a measured amount of partly cooked corn is pumped down their esophagi. The technique packs on the pounds quickly, creating a fatty liver. Some say the protesters and legislators are clueless and scoff at the idea that ducks, whose livers alone are worth $75 a pound, are mistreated. But Gene Bauston, a co-founder of the animal rights group Farm Sanctuary, says the pictures and videos of foie gras farms show that force-feeding is a 'cruel and unnecessary practice' that should not be legal."

It goes on to tell us that producers feel victimized. You can read the whole piece on line at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/04/national/04foie.html 

Under "Editorial Notebook," at the bottom of the New York Times editorials, there is a piece by Lawrence Downes headed "One Man's Liver..."

It opens:

"The list of things we do to animals before we eat them is constrained only by the limits of human hunger and ingenuity, which means it is not constrained by much. Trapping, hooking, netting, plucking, bleeding, butterflying, beheading, gutting -- the search for delicious knows few bounds or qualms. That's why it is surprising that a prominent chef, of all people -- Charlie Trotter, the TV celebrity and author from Chicago -- would decide to draw the line at a practice as old and esteemed as the force-feeding of ducks and geese to give them fatty, luscious livers. That's right: Chef Trotter has renounced foie gras, on ethical grounds."

It includes this heartening line: "Don't be frightened, foodies, but this may be a trend -- another example of how far the animal-rights cause has come in from the fringe."

It ends: "By spurning an easy fix of fancy fat, Mr. Trotter is simply making his job a bit harder, and this man-eat-duck world a slightly kinder place. There is much to admire in that."

You can read the whole piece it on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/04/opinion/04mon4.html 

The Monday, April 4, Seattle Post-Intelligencer front page article is headed, "Foie gras leaves activists with a bad taste. Lawmakers asked to ban force-feeding of birds for delicacy." It talks about the delicacy's popularity, then asks, "But is this gourmet chef's staple (pronounced "fwah grah") also an atrocity?" You can read it on line at:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/food/218685_foiegras04.html?source=rss 

The New York Times deserves appreciative letters for its editorial supporting the chef's stand against foie gras. The editorial and articles open the door to discussions of any aspect of the modern food supply.

The New York Times takes letters at: letters@nytimes.com 

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer takes letters at: editpage@seattlepi.com  and advises, "To have your letter considered for publication, it must include your name, address, daytime telephone number and signature. All letters should be no longer than 200 words and are subject to editing. Because of the volume of letters received, not all letters can be published. Letters that cannot be verified also will not be published."

SAFARI HUNTING TAX BREAKS ON WASHINGTON POST, AND INTERNET HUNTING ON CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR FRONT PAGES, AND SAFARI LOBBYIST TO HEAD WILDLIFE  POSITION IN LA TIMES 4/5/05

Hunting stories abound in the Tuesday, April 5 papers. The Washington Post has a front page story on tax breaks for Big-game hunters, a Christian Science Monitor front page looks at Internet hunting (of real animals) and the Los Angeles Times tells us that an ex Safari hunting lobbyist has been appointed head of the federal agency charged with protecting the nation's wildlife.

The front page Washington Post story, by Marc Kaufman, is headed: "Big-Game Hunting Brings Big Tax Breaks: Trophy Donations Raise Questions in Congress."

It tells of exotic animal mounts and skins being donated to non profit organizations, such as museums:

"Often appraised for many times their market value, the trophies can yield hefty income tax deductions if nonprofit organizations agree to accept them as charitable gifts. And the Wyobraska museum and others have been more than willing.

"According to critics in Congress, top officials at natural history museums and animal rights advocates, this form of charitable giving allows wealthy hunters to go on big-game expeditions essentially at taxpayers' expense -- an arrangement so blatant that one animal trophy appraiser advertises his services under the headline: 'Hunt for Free.' The taxpayer subsidies also encourage hunters to track down and shoot the largest, fittest and rarest of the world's animals, the critics say....

Of the Wyobraska museum we learn:

"Records show that in 2000, Wyobraska took in mounts worth $1.4 million. In 2004, the museum's curator said, the value of donations grew to more than $5 million, even though display rooms and storage containers were already overflowing..."

Kaufman explains:

"What makes charitable giving so popular with big-game hunters is that their trophies are being appraised at top dollar, often using a donor-friendly 'cost of replacement' method that estimates how much a hunter would have to pay to track down the same quarry again."

And we learn that when non profit groups, such as the Wyobraska museum, auction off the mounts, "winning bids are generally 10 to 20 percent of the appraised values." In 2003 the Wyobraska museum "sold mounts with an appraised value of $4.2 million for about $67,000, according to its yearly tax report."

The story is long and detailed. You'll find it on line at:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26324-2005Apr4.html 

It provides a good opportunity for letters not only supporting a crack-down on this particular activity, but looking at other areas where tax breaks support animal abuse (such as factory farming), or letters condemning sport hunting, or about the purported educational value of seeing mounted dead animals. 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."

To learn more, from HSUS, about the issue explored in the Washington Post story and how you can get involved, go to: http://hsus.ga4.org/campaign/FED_2005_trophyhunt_taxscam/g5sg73rq5n3tdm?source=gabag6  

The Tuesday April 5 Los Angeles Times article, headed "Ex-hunting lobbyist to head agency" (Pg F3) is ironically related. It opens:

The Bush administration has selected a former lobbyist of a controversial trophy-hunting group as the interim head of the federal agency charged with protecting the nation's wildlife. Matthew J. Hogan, who once lobbied Congress on behalf of the Safari Club International, was promoted to director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, replacing Steve Williams. Hogan was the agency's deputy director...The Safari Club promotes international trophy hunting of exotic animals, advocates for hunters' rights around the world and sponsors conservation work."

There is nice quote from HSUS's Mike Markarian:

"Fish and Wildlife is supposed to promote conservation. Safari Club International fosters hunting madness around the world and encourages its members to target rare and endangered species."

You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/features/outdoors/la-os-briefs5.1apr05,1,345186.story . And you can politely let readers of the Los Angeles Times editorial page know what you think of appointment by sending a letter to: letters@latimes.com . The Times advises, "Send well-written individual letters only; Do not send attachments. Letters should be brief, and may be edited. Please include your full name, mailing address and daytime phone number."

The Christian Science Monitor front page story on hunting is headed: "Hunting by remote control draws fire from all quarters."

It tells us "the concept of live-action hunting - done over the Internet - is raising the hackles of everyone from animal-rights activists to hunting groups to gun advocates. As a result, lawmakers in 14 states are now trying to ban the practice, including Texas, where the only such online hunting facility exists. The first paid hunt is scheduled to occur on April 9 on a ranch outside San Antonio, and many are racing to stop the practice before it gets started. The dispute is raising new ethical questions over what is an appropriate form of hunting, and represents another example of the unlimited possibilities of the Internet and the sometimes public pressure to limit it."

We read, "In a rare alliance, the Humane Society of the United States and Safari Club International, the world's leading trophy-hunting organization, are both supporting legislation banning the practice....Even groups that help the disabled hunt are upset. The powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), for instance, has a program designed for disabled hunters, but the idea is to get them into the wilderness or participate in shooting events....The biggest opponents may be hunters themselves."

Given the strength of those lobbies, I hope animal advocates, rather than pursuing this easy target, will use the publicity it generates to remind readers about the cruelty of any type of hunting -- it makes no difference to the animal if he is shot by somebody in the great doors or sitting at a computer -- though the chances of his being maimed and left to die a long agonizing death are greater in the former.

You can send a letter on the issue to the Christian Science Monitor (please don't use any of my exact wording) at:

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4  or to your local paper when it covers this issue. 

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. I am always happy to help you find an email address for a letter to the editor, or to edit letters.

ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS FRONT PAGE ON GRIZZLY BEAR BAITING  --4/6/05

Following Monday's front page Washington Post story about wolf trapping in Alaska, we have more sad news from that state this week. The front page of the Wednesday April 6 Anchorage Daily News carries the headline, "State's predator control effort opens Tok area to grizzly baiting; Up to 81 bears may be killed to boost flagging moose populations."

The story opens:

"Grizzly bears wandering out of their winter dens in the eastern Interior this spring may be in for a lethal surprise -- for the first time, hunters can kill the animals after attracting them with bacon grease, doughnuts and other bait. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game hopes to see as many as 81 brown bears killed in an area north of Tok to help boost the moose population for human consumption. It's part of a broader program in the region that includes aerial shooting of more than 100 wolves this winter."

We read:

"Baiting black bears is particularly popular among bow hunters. Typically, the hunter sets out aromatic foodstuffs such as grease, dog food and pastries for several days in a row, and continues bringing bait after bears begin visiting the site. With the bears habituated to the food source, the hunter can wait in hiding to make the kill.

There is a quote from Terry Brigner, chairman of the Upper Tanana/Fortymile Fish and Game Advisory Committee: "We're getting an enormous amount of (hunting) pressure. If we don't do something to maintain a pretty high moose population, it's going to affect hunting opportunities for an awful lot of people."

Opponents fear there is danger of wiping bears out of the area, and also "baiting itself could create problems for hunters and area residents... Brown bears are more territorial and aggressive than black bears, which could make them unpredictable at a bait station. Sows with cubs, which can't be shot, could also become accustomed to human food and eventually become nuisance bears..."

You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/6350411p-6227704c.html 

And send a letter at http://www.adn.com/help/v-letters /. The Anchorage Daily News website says it publishes about half of the letters it receives.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE FRONT PAGE, CHICAGO SUN TIMES, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE FOIE GRAS 4/6-7

Foie gras continues to make big news. The New York Times editorial against it, which I sent out on Monday, appeared in the Wednesday, April 6, version of the International Herald Tribune. The dispute between Charlie Trotter and other chefs is on the front page of the Thursday, April 7, Chicago Tribune. And the Chicago Sun Times tells us of a proposed ordinance that would force Chicago restaurants to pull foie gras off their menus.

Though the anti foie gras bill in the Illinois legislature took a devastating amendment such that it would now ban production but not sale of foie gras in Illinois (which does not currently produce foie gras) the article in the Thursday, April 7 Chicago Sun Times, headed "Alderman wants foie gras off menus" indicates that the issue is not dead yet. It is short:

"Ald. Joseph Moore (49th) Wednesday followed the lead of famed Chicago chef Charlie Trotter with a proposed ordinance that would force restaurants to pull foie gras off their menus.

"The 'unethical treatment of animals should be completely distasteful' to restaurant patrons, he argued.

"'I just think that the public needs to be informed about the cruelty the birds must undergo, and it's incumbent on us for those who hold public office to take action,' Moore said later Wednesday. He said the council could vote on the matter as soon as its May 11 meeting."

It is on line at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-foiegras07.html  and you can respond at: http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html . Select "letter to the editor from the pulldown menu."

The New York Times editorial, "One Man's Liver," published in the International Herald Tribune, can be found on line at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/05/opinion/eddownes.html  The IHT takes letters at: letters@iht.com

The Thursday, April 7, front page story is headed, "Trotter won't turn down heat in foie gras flap."

We learn "Trotter isn't apologizing for his harsh statements made to support his opinion that the production of foie gras -- the enlarged liver of a duck or goose -- is too cruel for the dish to be served."

Trotter faced "charges of hypocrisy" when the New York Post's Page Six column reported that just two weeks earlier "Trotter served three courses featuring foie gras" at his restaurant.

We learn "In fact the dishes were prepared by guest chefs Tetsuya Wakuda and Heston Blumenthal" and that Trotter says that is "consistent with his stance of not trying to impose his personal feelings about foie gras on other chefs."

In fact, Trotter doesn't support the anti foie gras bill, and is not generally fond of animal rights activists. But we read "Trotter retorted that in this case, maybe the animal rights folks are on the side of good. 'I know it's not making it easier for chefs, but is that a bad thing?' Trotter said. 'Would chefs suddenly feel like they were less of a chef if they were no longer able to serve foie gras? I would hope not.' Trotter maintains that his visits to three foie gras farms convinced him that the force-feeding process causes the ducks to suffer."

We are given some background on the issue:

"Animal-rights activists have conducted an aggressive campaign against foie gras, with restaurants, foie gras farms and at least one Bay Area chef's home suffering vandalism in recent years. The groups scored a major victory last September when California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill outlawing the production and sale of foie gras made from force-fed birds as of 2012.

By definition, foie gras comes from force-fed birds, with grains dropped into the duck or goose through a tube inserted down its hard esophagus, causing the liver to balloon. In February, state Sen. Kay Wojcik (R-Schaumburg) introduced a similar bill in Illinois, though it has been amended to apply only to foie gras production, which doesn't occur in Illinois."

You can read the whole article on line at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0504070058apr07,1,5263303.story?coll=chi-news-hed

(You may need to register, which is easy and free.)

The attention this issue is receiving is heartening. Letters to the editor keep it alive. The story presents a great opportunity about the cruelty of foie gras, reminding readers that it has been banned in many other countries, and in the state of California. And though the proposed ordinance banning it from Chicago restaurants was covered by the Sun Times rather than the Tribune, there is no reason letters to the Tribune should not refer to it favorably. You may want to use the foie gras issue as a jump off point for a letter on other issues of cruelty in the modern food supply -- though try to be brief, as shorter letters are more likely to be published. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: The Chicago Tribune takes letters at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform

LOS ANGELES TIMES ON SANTA CRUZ ISLAND FERAL PIG SLAUGHTER -- 4/10/05

There was a sad lead story in the Saturday, April 9, Los Angeles Times (Pg B1), headed, "Hunt Is on for Island's Troublesome Tenants;

Thousands of feral pigs will be killed to preserve native plants and a rare fox species." It should be read by any animal advocates who give money to the Nature Conservancy, a group that attempts to restore land to its natural setting by slaughtering members of disruptive species who have been introduced by humans.

We read:

"Beginning this week, MacDonald and his team of 10 hunters will spend 27 months shooting pigs until not one remains on Santa Cruz Island.

They'll use traps, gunners from helicopters and tracking dogs in relentless porcine pursuit.

The 96-square-mile Santa Cruz Island, 18 miles off the Ventura County coast, is one of the most ecologically rich and complex areas left in California. It is owned by the nonprofit Nature Conservancy and the federal National Parks Service."

"The history of its degradation, however, is as rich and complex as the island itself. From 1947 to 1971, DDT manufacturer Montrose Co. dumped large quantities of the chemical into the channel. That weakened the eggs of the bald eagle, which nested in the Channel Islands, resulting in its disappearance from the chain. Meanwhile, pigs were being raised on the ranches on the island from about the mid-1800s to the 1980s. Pigs that got loose became wild -- and began reproducing.

"The sins of the pigs are many. They root through island vegetation, causing erosion and providing fertile ground for nonnative plants, such as fennel. Fennel has spread uncontrollably, in thick pastures smelling of black licorice, and now endangers nine species of native plants.

Pigs eat acorns, preventing the native oak trees from reproducing. The pigs, moreover, dig up ancient Chumash Indian settlements and gravesites. And the young pigs are prey for nonnative golden eagles, which found the pickings especially good on Santa Cruz Island. Well-fed and aggressive, golden eagles forced out the bald eagles. The golden eagles came for the piglets, but they stayed for the island fox, an animal found nowhere in the world but the islands off Southern California. And because of the golden eagles, the island fox hovers near extinction. Last year, the animal, roughly the size of a small cat, was placed on the federal Endangered Species List."

"Fixing the man-made chain of events has required a complicated series of ecological surgeries, according to environmentalists and National Parks Service officials. And the last of these -- eradicating the feral pigs -- began this week with MacDonald's hunt.

Island foxes, meanwhile, are being bred and readied for release in the wild once the pigs meet their fate. The numbers of golden eagles have already been reduced, and bald eagles were reintroduced a few years ago."

The article tells us that "the pigs are not without friends' who advocate for "pig contraception and sterilization as ways of eradicating the population" rather than mass slaughter. Those friends are the Channel Island Animal Protection Association. You can learn more about the issue, and how you can get involved, at their website: http://www.chiapa.org/

Opposition from the public, printed in the Los Angeles Times, could help. You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pighunt9apr09,1,1046360.story  and respond to the Los Angeles at: letters@latimes.com.

The paper recommends "well-written individual letters only; no group e-mails. Do not send attachments. Letters should be brief, and may be edited. They become the property of The Times and may be republished in any format. Please include your full name, mailing address and daytime phone number (your number will not be published)."

UK INDEPENDENT: "THE VIVISECTIONIST V THE ANIMAL ACTIVIST" -- April 10

London's April 10 "Independent on Sunday" has a 4,000 word article headed "The Vivisectionist V the Animal Activist. One says his research transforms lives. The other has endured prison."

It is a balanced piece, presenting neither the activists nor scientists as monsters. It is bound to leave most readers realizing that the medical testing system needs a drastic overhaul, even if they are not yet convinced that vivisection should end.

It opens with a discussion of the success that militant animal rights activists have had at preventing the construction of a primate experimentation facility at Oxford. Then we read interviews with:

"Oxford Professor of Neurosurgery Tipu Aziz - one of Britain's leading brain surgeons, and one of the very few professionals willing to speak out publicly on the need for the centre - says that it must be built."

and with

"lifelong animal-rights activist Mel Broughton, 44. He and Robert Cogswell founded SPEAC (Stop Primate Experimentation at Cambridge) to protest at the Cambridge labs. Now renamed 'Speak - the voice for animals', it is the leading group in the campaign to stop the Oxford centre."

We read of Aziz:

"Since 1991, using brain surgery techniques which he helped to pioneer, Aziz has operated on more than 1,000 people suffering from Parkinson's Disease and other uncontrollable movement disorders. The operation instantly stops the convulsions and unlocks their joints - as if by flicking a switch. The procedure, he says, has transformed their lives. It involves permanently inserting two electrodes deep inside the brain to a precise spot: the sub-thalamic nucleus. Wires are passed under the skin to a pacemaker and battery inserted in the chest. Only the battery needs replacing - about every five years....

The operation - which is now estimated to have helped some 30,000 Parkinson's sufferers around the globe - was developed by Aziz and others through experiments on monkeys."

The history of the research is given in some detail. Then we read, "His research continues: into a possible vaccine against Alzheimer's, into multiple sclerosis tremors, and into the theory that the brains of Parkinson's sufferers may be 'repairable' using a modified virus. Aziz uses on average two monkeys a year for his research. 'Monkey studies are an integral part of my work,' he says. 'Every time I see one of my patients, that justifies it.'"

He says that he does the same operation on his human patients as on the monkeys, "And I don't believe that a monkey feels any different, so I'm quite happy with what I do. The experiments we do are not torturing' these animals. These monkeys will come up to us, let us put the radio control over the pacemaker to alter the rate of stimulation, and then they go off and do their own thing while they're videoed. That's our experiment."

He goes on to describe animal rights activists as terrorists. And he criticizes those who call for computer modelling or say that animal research often gives misleading results.

In the interview with Mel Broughton, he and his fellow activists are presented not as terrorists but as "ordinary folks."

The article quotes Broughton's speech on a megaphone outside of the half-built Oxford facility:

"We have learnt that a professor recently applied for a licence to conduct brain experiments on primates. We've seen the licence application. Monkeys will have electrodes fitted into their brains, and will be deprived of food and water. They will be strapped into a chair for up to 18 hours a day. The reason given for this research is to study obesity and hunger in human beings. But we know why people get fat. We know why we feel hungry. Why do this to sentient creatures when you already know the answers? This university is telling the world that this building will be a monument to scientific research into curing diseases in human beings. This is not the case. But the benefit to the researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and the vivisection industry is massive. The technology already exists to carry out safe, beneficial research which will help people suffering from disease, and does not involve inflicting pain on animals who have no choice and are completely at your mercy.

Oxford University you should be ashamed of yourselves for relying on this pointless, cruel and callous treatment of sentient beings, and conning people into believing it's for their benefit. Because we've seen the research papers - and we know it's not."

The article offers other nice quotes from Broughton:

"There's this view of animal-rights campaigners that the only people who get involved are either complete lunatics or bunny huggers. The vivisection industry continually tells the public that we don't know what we're talking about and that we're just misguided animal lovers'. I think that's a deliberate move on their part to try to portray us as people who don't have an intelligent argument."

It continues:

"Broughton's passionate conviction - shared, it should be said, by a section of the scientific and medical professions - is that animal experimentation is outmoded, 19th-century science. He and other campaigners - such as Europeans for Medical Progress - say that advances in DNA techniques, computer modelling, tissue culture, and stem-cell research are far more reliable methods of testing drugs and finding cures for diseases. They cite a long list of supposed 'wonder drugs' which tested safe on animals - and were later withdrawn after proving harmful to humans. Animals, they say, have repeatedly proved to be unreliable models for results in humans.

Then another quote from Broughton: "We're not anti-science. I'd be more than happy to see this lab built - but to find cures for human disease using safe, scientific methods. This is about human health as well as about animal suffering."

The article presents Broughton as a gentle person who as a youth "was always looking after injured birds and things," was "arrested at an amusement park in Morecambe while trying to release a dolphin" but who, years later, was caught with incendiary devises in his car and was released from prison in June 2002 after serving two years, eight months."

Though Broughton makes it clear that all of his activism is now legal, he does not apologize for his earlier intentions. "He explains this by saying that history shows that most campaigns for major change have had to go through a stage of direct action, before moving on to legal methods to achieve their aims. That, he insists, is what he's now doing."

On Oxford University's claim that 98 per cent of the animals to be housed in the new facility will be rodents, he comments:

"I think it's extremely cynical, and it's an argument I've heard many times. The idea, I assume, is that most people view rats as vermin, and so they cannot expect much sympathy when they're experimented on. But whether it's a dog, cat, monkey, fish, amphibian or rodent, the point remains that that animal has an ability to suffer. Rodents are sociable, intelligent creatures, and they have the ability to suffer pain."

"I have no qualms in saying that the idea of this lab makes me very, very angry. Change has to come, and we have a very large role in that, by creating a platform that allows others to speak out against what's happening. I do absolutely believe that we are going to change the way society views this issue. And we are in the process of doing that. How quickly that happens is in part down to what we do, and in part down to people who are involved in science. But it is going to happen - make no mistake about that. And I personally won't give up until it does. Ultimately it has to be banned, with legislation to stop it. It will come."

The article gives links to the following.

Oxford University: www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/; Europeans for Medical Progress: www.curedisease. net; Speak: www.speakcampaigns.org.uk

Then there is a portion, called "Life Inside The Laboratory," which gives the kind of information one usually finds on animal rights sites rather than in huge newspapers:

"Nearly three million animals are used annually in experiments in Britain. Of these, nearly 4,000 are monkeys. Campaigners have unearthed chilling details of experiments conducted in British laboratories, such as kittens which had one eye sewn shut and part of their brain exposed to research squints; and monkeys which had the tops of their skulls sawn off. A stroke had been induced, and, according to evidence presented at a High Court hearing earlier this year, the animals were then left unattended for up to 15 hours. Some were found dead the morning after the operation, others were in a 'poor condition'".

It also gives reassurances that Oxford will be entirely different (though the papers Broughton quotes might make some question that):

"The Government last year set up a national centre for the 'replacement, refinement and reduction' of animals in research. And Oxford University says that its new Biomedical Research facility will be 'one of the best in the country, in terms of animal welfare. The University of Oxford uses animals only in research programmes of the highest quality and only where there are no alternatives,' it says. 'All such work is carried out under licences issued by the Home Secretary after weighing its potential benefits against the effects on the animals concerned. The University is committed to the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement; on each project it ensures that the number of animals used is minimised and that procedures, care routines and husbandry are refined to maximise welfare. The University is committed to the highest standards of husbandry and housing... We expect that 98 per cent of the animals housed there will be rodents. Depending on other Home Office lice

nces held, there may also be some amphibia, ferrets, fish and primates."

That is an ironic ending given Broughton's comments on that issue.

The whole article, a fascinating read, is available on line at:

http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=142533&source=r_science 

In line with Broughton's suggestion that his activism is "creating a platform that allows others to speak out against what's happening," I hope activists will use this extensive discussion in the Independent as an opportunity to speak out. The Independent takes letters at: letters@independent.co.uk  and advises, "If you wish to submit a letter for publication in the newspaper, it must include the sender's name, postal address and daytime telephone number."

NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE ON CHIMERIC STEM CELL RESEARCH -- 4/10/05

The Sunday April 10, New York Times Magazine, has an article, by Jamie Shreeve, about chimeric research, entitled, "The Other Stem-Cell Debate." (P42.) The article explains that a chimera is "an organism assembled out of living parts taken from more than one biological species."

Besides the obvious concerns around animal experimentation, the article is disturbing, from an animal advocates point of view, for the assumption that there is only an ethical issue around experimentation if the animals become at all human.

Shreeve writes,

"Clearly it is unethical to study the unknown actions of stem cells in human subjects. One obvious solution is to insert the cells into animals and watch how they develop."

A bioethicist is quoted: "We have to be sure we are not creating beings with consciousness." As if we are sure that other animals are beings without consciousness.

Shreeve writes of human brains: "They are the physical address of everything we think of as uniquely human -- our rational thinking, intelligence, language, complex emotions and unparalleled ability to imagine a future and remember the past." Again, a big assumption, and probably an erroneous assumption, given that Koko's gorilla friend, Michael, once he learned sign language, explained that his mother's head had been cut off many years earlier (as was typical behavior of poachers).

Shreeve writes, "Would it be morally problematic to create a chimera with a significant degree of humanlike consciousness, cognition or emotion?" suggesting that other animals do not have a "significant degree" of humanlike emotions.

This general train is contradicted towards the end of the article, when it is noted that a comparison of the brains of living primates and the skulls of fossilized hominids shows "little evidence for the sudden appearance of some new thing -- a uniquely human gene, a completely novel brain structure in the hominid lineage -- that sets us distinctly apart." And Shreeve notes that in the laboratory chimps "can learn to communicate with sign language and other means on a par with the skills of a toddler."

But the premise that experimentation is only an ethical issue if the non human animal becomes a human animal, remains.

It is a lengthy and interesting article (some might find it chilling) that you can find on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/10/magazine/10CHIMERA.html

It presents a great opportunity for letters on the ethics of animal experimentation.

The New York Times Magazine takes letters at: magazine@nytimes.com  and advises, "All letters should include the writer's name, address and daytime phone number."

DETROIT FREE PRESS ON WANDA AND WINKY'S ARRIVAL AT ELEPHANT SANCTUARY 4/11/05

Today, Monday April 11, I share joyous news -- a short article, from the Detroit Free Press, about Wanda and Winky's new life. It is headed, "Girls doing great, say elephants' caretakers." I will paste the full short article below, though it can also be found on line at: http://www.freep.com/news/nw/elephants-bar111e_20050411.htm

The paper also includes an article about the PAWS sanctuary, which you can read on line at:

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/elephants11e_20050411.htm

Also in today's Detroit Free Press are two short sweet supportive letters, which I will share below the article. If you would like to add your voice of appreciation, or any comment on how humans treat members of other species, the paper takes letters at: letters@freepress.com  and instructs, "Please put the letter in text of the E-mail, not as an attachment. All writers must provide full name, full home address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters should be 200 words or less and are subject to editing."

Here is the article:

Girls doing great, say elephants' caretakers

April 11, 2005

By Hugh McDiarmid Jr

SAN ANDREAS, Calif. -- Across a rolling green meadow, past a glittering pond and to the top of a small hillock, Wanda the elephant lumbered Sunday morning, moments after the gate to her new universe -- a 45-acre enclosure at a the Ark 2000 elephant sanctuary -- opened to her new life.

She waved her trunk through thick patches of green clover and purple lupine still wet with morning dew. She grabbed low-hanging oak tree branches. She squeaked in apparent approval.

Her former zookeepers clung to the steel cables of the enclosure, watching her grow more distant and fighting their emotions.

"It's hard to believe it's her," said Detroit elephant keeper Patti Miles as she watched Wanda, the arthritic 48-year-old who some believed would be hobbled by the long truck trip from Detroit.

"God, it's just so incredible to see her that far away from us," said Scott Carter, the zoo's director of conservation and animal welfare, as he watched Wanda.

Her companion, Winky, played it more cautiously, leaving the safety of the barn several times to experience the novelty of tall grass and open space, making it a few yards farther from the barn each time.

The sanctuary's three other Asian elephants watched Wanda's progress curiously, rumbling and squeaking greetings to her from a gated outdoor enclosure. Elephant keepers were waiting Sunday afternoon to see whether Wanda would introduce herself over the fence to the trio. If she does, they might release them into the same yard quickly. Or, it could be several days before they're together.

It all depends on the elephants: "We're on elephant time now," said Carter, noting that human timetables are irrelevant in the elephants' world.

Wanda's aggressive exploration of the acreage and Winky's limited forays outside the barn were more than many of their handlers had expected during the delicate adjustment period after their arrival Friday morning.

Some elephants have taken months to venture into the full 45-acre grounds, said Pat Derby, founder of the Performing Animal Welfare Society, of which Ark 2000 is a part.

"Our elephant Annie stood by the gate for four months," Derby said. "So this is fantastic. These girls are doing great. We're going to have to put track shoes on Wanda."

Contact HUGH McDIARMID JR. at 248-351-3295 or mcdiarmid@freepress.com .

-----------------------

And here are the letters:

http://www.freep.com/voices/letters/elets11e_20050411.htm

April 11, 2005

ELEPHANTS, AND FANS, THANK DETROIT

Thank you, Detroit, for considering the needs of elephants over people's own selfish needs to exploit them for human entertainment. Bravo to zoo director Ron Kagan and to all Detroiters who supported the decision to move Winky and Wanda to the sanctuary in California.

Judith Fish

Coconut Creek, Fla.

WORLD WAS WATCHING

Thank you for your excellent coverage of the move of Detroit Zoo elephants Winky and Wanda to sanctuary. I don't know if Detroit knew it, but thousands of people over the globe were watching and hoping for a successful trip. We hung on every word of your staff writers who kept us informed of the elephants' welfare.

Cynthia Pierson

Louisville, Ky.

VEGGIE DOGS IN BALLPARKS ON WASHINGTON TIMES FRONT PAGE 4/12/05

There is more happy news today. Or I should write, 'Soy Happy' news. As vegetarianism becomes increasingly mainstream, a Tuesday, April 12, Washington Times story headline tells us "Baseball menu at RFK a victory for vegetarians." You can view the front page image at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/frontpage.htm

The story opens: "Veggie dogs and chardonnay are in. Cotton candy and lemonade are out. The veggie dog and three types of wine, with more traditional baseball fare like hot dogs, soft pretzels, soda and beer, will be sold in the booths and portable stands throughout Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium for the Washington Nationals' home opener Thursday night."

It tells us: "Aramark Corp., the Philadelphia food-services company that runs the concessions at RFK Stadium, put the vegetarian item on the menu after lobbying efforts from a Berkeley, Calif., vegetarian-advocacy group called Soy Happy. Johanna McCloy, who heads the group, said she has worked with 10 other Major League Baseball (MLB) stadiums since 2000 to get the veggie dog on their menus.

Ms. McCloy said she is seeing a change in the character of stadium concessions.

There is a quote from McCloy, an animal advocate who finds that health and nutrition are her strongest selling points in her push to get veggie food items into major entertainment venues : "There is this old view that greasy fare sells and people expect it. And those items are great, but more fans are aware of nutritional content in food and they want healthier items."

I have shared, above, the sections that deal with vegetarian items -- you can read the whole article on line at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/business/20050411-114952-9586r.htm

You can learn more about the drive to get veggie dogs into ballparks, and how you can help, at: http://www.soyhappy.org/

The front page story provides a great opportunity for supportive letters. The Washington Times takes letters at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/contact-us/

(Choose letter to the editor from the pulldown menu.)

And if your ballpark is not one of the dozen on Soy Happy's list of parks that sell them, how about a letter to your local editor, during baseball season, saying how badly veggie dogs are needed? If you have any trouble finding the email address for your local paper I am always happy to help, and I am always happy to edit letters. Shorter letters are more likely to be published. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.

CBS HIT SERIES "JUDGING AMY" LOOKS AT ANIMAL CRUELTY -- 4/12/05

The episode of the hit CBS series Judging Amy that aired on Tuesday, April 12, included two storylines relevant to animal advocates. One that explored cruelty to companion animals, was handled beautifully. The other issue, one relevant to billions more animals, the choice of Amy's daughter Lauren to go vegetarian, is still being played out.

Starting with the good news on the animal cruelty issue:

Amy sees a case in which a teenage boy has beaten his mother and locked her in a basement for hours. The neighbors heard her screaming.

The prosecutors call him sadistic and remorseless and want him charged as an adult.

We first learn that something was very wrong with his rearing when his mother explains that she can no longer control him, and then says,

"He won't stay in his room anymore. When he was little I could lock him in his room till he settled down. 'You want to be loud, you want to carry on? Fine - Mom's going to the grocery store -- see you in a few hours.' I can't do that anymore, he is too big and mean."

Later, when Eric is on the witness stand, he says, of the attack on his mother:

"It ain't like I didn't warn her."

When queried he says,

"I told her if she touches the dog, something is going to happen."

Judge Amy Gray: "What dog? Is there a dog in the picture?"

Prosecutor: "I believe Eric keeps a pitbull in his mother's back yard."

Amy: "What happened to the dog?"

Eric is silent, looking distressed and angry. Amy explains this is his last chance to tell her what happened before she has to decide whether to have him tried as an adult in which case he could go to jail for a long while. She asks again.

Amy: "What happened to the dog?"

Eric: "She hit him with the bat. She can't hurt me, so she goes after the dog."

The Mother yelling: "That dog was dangerous, he was training it to attack me!"

Eric yelling back: "That dog couldn't hurt nothing! They were going to kill it because it wouldn't fight. That's why I took him. I taught him to fight back. I know because he bit me when I pulled her off. He was hurting and thought I was her."

Amy: "What is the dog's name Eric?

Eric: "Cassius."

Amy: "You want to see Cassius again?"

Eric, now sobbing: "He is dead. She beat his face in. His jaw was all...

I took him to the park and I buried him that night."

Mother: "I didn't want that dog in my yard. It was always barking and making noise."

Amy: "So you beat it to death with a baseball bat?"

We see, again, Eric crying. End of scene.

At the time of sentencing this is what Amy says:

"I am surprisingly hopeful today. I am saying that because it is very hard to hear what has been said in this courtroom and not feel disheartened. Here is child rearing at its worse. Abusive, negligent, mutually destructive. As parents we must prepare for the day when our children will test us, and it is at that point that we must be the most vigilant, not just in disciplining them but in disciplining ourselves so that punishment does not become an outlet for our anger and disappointment. Done well or done poorly, parenting leaves its mark. And as Sonya Oldham has learned, you reap what you sew.

"But I promised you hope today and for that I direct you to Eric Oldham. There is a lot to look past, I know. Eric is a violent kid. And I have to admit that initially I saw him as a kid who didn't care about anyone or anything, so emotionally damaged that he was not capable of caring.

But I was wrong.

Eric loved his dog. He rescued it, he trained it, he took care of it, he mourns its death. And while that doesn't make him any less violent, it is a cause for hope. So, Eric, I am dismissing the kidnapping charge. However, I find probable cause on the charge of assault in the second degree. So, if Eric admits... (After a brief consultation with his lawyer, he nods) I will commit Eric to DCF as delinquent for placement in a residential treatment center for eighteen months. I am recommending the QUANT facility which has an inmate program for the training of seeing eye dogs. Seems like a good fit.

You know there is a world out there where you don't need those fists, Eric. Protect what is good in you and you won't ever have to face a locked door again.

And in a soft voice, she says to him, "Good luck."

The episode did a beautiful job of making the connection between what cruelty or kindness to animals says about a person's character.

At least with regard to companion animals.

One of the strong points of "Judging Amy" is that Amy's character is complex. She is a sensitive, intelligent, charismatic person, but far from perfect. We see that clearly in her reaction to her daughter Lauren's choice to go vegetarian. Here is how the theme has played out so far:

Amy is boasting over breakfast that she is cool with Lauren's attempts to differentiate herself, as young teenage girls do. (Lauren appears to be about twelve or thirteen -- the actress who plays her is in the seventh grade.) She says she can die her hair pink, and not tell her things, and Amy won't let it get to her.

Lauren walks into the room wearing a "Meat is Murder" t-shirt. Amy asks where she got it. Lauren says it is from her friend Regan, a friend Amy has not met. Lauren pushes the bacon off her plate, saying "Ew."

Amy: "So, you're suddenly a vegetarian?"

Lauren: "Yes."

Amy: "Yes what?"

Lauren: "Yes I am a vegetarian."

Amy: "You are going to just stop eating meat?"

Lauren: "That's what vegetarian means."

Amy: "Yes, I know, Lauren, but you can't just eat toast and gummy bears and whatever. You're gonna have to get protein, otherwise you won't be healthy. Isn't that right, ma?"

Amy's mother (Tyne Daly): "I think the two heart attacks disqualify me on this topic."

Lauren: "We don't have to eat animals to survive, but we do it anyways, just because we like it, and that's cruel."

Amy: OK, OK. For the record, animals eating other animals is a totally natural thing. Believe me if there were animals who were bigger than you and smarter than you and had opposable thumbs, they'd eat you.

Lauren as she leaves: "I am not going to argue about it."

Amy calling after her: "Well I think you should think this through because I am not going to make you a separate tofu whatever at every meal."

Another day (the next day?) Lauren comes down to breakfast but only wants to take a banana. Amy says, "Just drink some milk or something." (It has not been made clear whether Lauren is vegetarian or vegan but previews of the upcoming episode suggest she has become a "straight-edge" girl, and they are vegan.)

The doorbell rings. It is Regan, who is tough looking -- spiky hair, loads of eye shadow, multi pierced ears. She and her brother stopped by to give Lauren a ride to school, but Amy won't let Lauren ride with them. When Lauren leaves the room for a moment, Amy reads aloud Regan's badge: "Meat is murder." Then Amy comments sarcastically, "Wow, I didn't know that. I am a judge, you think they would have told me."

Regan says: "Maybe you didn't listen."

Amy says, "I think it is time for you to go Regan."

The next relevant scene is dinner time. The whole family is surprised that Amy has cooked.

She tells Lauren: "Its ravioli. There is no meat."

Then Amy's brother says, "What is in this? These little round things. Did you put shrimp in this?"

Lauren: "I knew it!"

Amy: "It is just shrimp. You didn't say anything about seafood."

Lauren: "You are trying to trick me into eating meat!"

Amy: "Shrimp is not meat."

Brother: "It is also not an ingredient in ravioli."

Lauren: "Why don't you just respect my beliefs?"

Amy: "A lot of vegetarians eat seafood. And I think you should too Lauren."

Lauren: "You don't know what is best for me."

Amy: "And Regan does?"

Lauren, leaving: "You don't even know her."

Amy, again yelling after her: "I know she dresses like a homeless person!"

Actually, throughout the episode, both Regan and Lauren wear jackets covered in various animal rights badges, such as the 'no fur' badge.

That night, Amy discovers that Lauren has run away. She has only gone as far as her father's house across town. The next morning when she gets home, Amy says they need to have a big talk that night. Lauren consents but says:

"Don't talk about my friends. Just because they don't agree with you, doesn't make them bad."

Amy says, "OK."

That night we see Lauren asleep in her room. Amy comes in and hangs up her jacket. The last shot is on the 'no fur' badge.

We hope the show is heading towards suggesting that Amy should take some real interest in and show some respect for Lauren's positions. The promo for the upcoming week was not promising. It said: "Amy's daughter is hanging out with the wrong crowd and Amy is getting scared." But promos are not written by the show's producers. In an upcoming scene we hear Amy asking Lauren" "You went to a club called the straight edge??"

Since straight-edgers, besides being vegan, consume no alcohol and do no drugs, such friends should hardly be a parent's worst nightmare. But they look rough, as Regan does, so it is reasonable that Amy might be nervous. We can't tell yet how this will play out.

Since the upcoming episodes have already been filmed, viewer feedback will not impact them. But it can have a significant impact on future seasons, so please take a moment to let the producers know that Lauren's choice is a good one. Notes from parents of healthy vegetarian teenagers would be particularly useful. If that is you, I urge you to write!

Also, there is a poll on the Judging Amy page, where we can support Lauren's choice. It asks "Is Lauren too bratty?"

Since Lauren hasn't really been bratty, but has only decided for herself that she wants to be vegetarian, it is a disappointing question.

The options given are:

-- Yes, she needs to learn to respect her mother.

-- No, she's acting like a normal teen.

-- Not sure.

Unfortunately, as I send this out, the first option is ahead. You can vote at:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/judging_amy/

And you can post a comment supporting Lauren's healthful and compassionate choice at:

http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml

Choose "Judging Amy" from the pull-down menu.

I send big thanks to activists Karen Loveless and Lucy Shelton for making sure we knew about this episode.

CBS EVENING NEWS: "ARE FISH SMART?" -- 4/13/05

Overall, the coverage was positive. Though Bob Schieffer, the interim anchor at CBS Evening News, chuckled as he announced it in the "coming up" section (as he did with the animal rights story the show ran on March 18) he managed to keep a straight face as he introduced it. Bruce Friedrich, from PETA, came across beautifully as he spoke of fish intelligence. A fisherman who provided the rebuttal, saying he couldn't think of any species of fish that is smart, did not come across as the sharpest hook on the line. And marine biologist, Sylvia Earle, while saying that talk about fish intelligence is a slippery slope, did say she will not eat fish because of the havoc caused by the fishing industry with its huge nets and lines.

The story was not exactly as animal advocates would have liked it. But I think we have to accept that to have one of the network evening news shows just discussing the possible intelligence of fish, and whether or not people should eat fish, indicates a big step forward for our movement. We should do everything we can to encourage such coverage. Please thank CBS Evening News for the story. The show takes comments at evening@cbsnews.com

Here is the printed version:

--------------------------------------

Fish Smarts Or A Fish Tale?

April 13, 2005

Fish can be wondrous to behold and delicious to consume, but now animal rights activists are declaring that fish are smart - too smart to eat.

"They actually do better on cognition tests than do dogs and cats," says Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Friedrich believes a fish is an intelligent individual.

As CBS News Correspondent John Blackstone reports, fish are the latest creatures adopted by PETA, a group that has campaigned against hot dogs and declared fried chicken cruel and unusual.

"Sylvia Earle, who's probably the foremost living marine biologist, she says, 'I'd no more eat a fish than I'd eat a cocker spaniel,'" says Friedrich.

But hang on. When we dove deeper into this story, catching up with Earle, we found the cocker spaniel tale wasn't quite what PETA claimed.

"Actually, I said Labrador retriever," she says, joking.

And she wasn't suggesting fish have some higher intelligence.

"The question of intelligence is a really slippery one," she says.

It's as slippery as fish themselves, which Earle no longer eats - not because they're smart, she says, but because they are disappearing as the fishing industry scours the seas with huge nets and lines.

Asked, of the fish he catches, which is the smartest, fisherman Bill Maidhof says: "I can't think of any of them that are smart - not one."

A fisherman should know which fish are thinkers.

"My mother always said, 'Don't worry, there's always more fish in the sea,'" says marine biologist John McCosker. "Unfortunately she was wrong."

McCosker hates to see fish species disappearing.

"I love fish," he says. "I love to eat fish."

And that, says McCosker, is a good reason to protect fish - better perhaps than PETA's claim that a school of fish is a place of higher learning.

TERRIFIC VEGAN SEGMENT ON FOOD NETWORK BBQ SHOW -- 4/13/05-4/30/05

I received the following from Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, Founder & Director of Compassionate Cooks: http://www.compassionatecooks.com :

"BTW, Karen, the Food Network is airing the Vegan BBQ again - Watch our veggie segment on BBQ with Bobby Flay on April 13 9:00 p.m., April 14 1:00 a.m., and April 30, 2:00 p.m. All time zones. It's on tonight, tomorrow, and on the 30th. Perhaps you'd be able to send something to your group and encourage people to thank the Food Network - we're really encouraging them to create a veg show, and the more responses they get, the better.

http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_sf/text/0,1976,FOOD_17616_21388,00.html  "

I have seen the segment. It is thoroughly positive, just delightful, and a surprising inclusion in a show all about BBQ. I hope people will support Colleen's efforts by sending thanks to Bobby Flay at the link above.

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS ON TAX BREAKS FOR EXOTIC HUNTING -- 4/14/05

From NBC Nightly News, Thursday, April 14:

"Thursday on ‘Nightly’

Should hunters who kill exotic animals get a fat tax break for their handiwork?'

NBC Nightly News airs at 6:30 in most markets but check your local listings.

The web page says, "Send Us Email" at nightly@nbc.com

Please let NBC Nightly know what you think of the tax breaks, but most importantly, thank the show for this coverage!

If you missed the Washington Post front page story on this issue, you'll find it on line at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26324-2005Apr4.html 

You can learn more about the investigation, and "What you can do," on the HSUS website at:

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/hunting/hunting_tax_deductions.html

US NEWS & WORLD REPORT ON CAT HUNTING -- April 25, 2005, edition

The prospect of feral cats being removed from lists of protected species, and being shot by hunters, has been in the news for the last week. It was on the front page of the Tuesday, April 12, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/apr05/317585.asp ) and is covered in the current, April 25, edition of U.S. News & World Report. You'll find that brief article at:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050425/25week.lede_2.htm  and I will paste it here:

"They Shoot Cats, Don't They? (By Lisa Stein, pg 20.)

"Not legally--at least not yet. But if some Wisconsin denizens and cat-haters get their way, they just may one day soon. There's a move afoot in Wisconsin to legalize hunting of wild--as in alley, not mountain--cats. Under the measure, citizens could blow away kitties without collars; no matter that they may have escaped from owners or wriggled out of their neckbands. Supporters say the move would help save songbirds and other wildlife. Hogwash, say animal-rights activists, who are up in, ahem, paws. 'It's a ridiculous proposal,' says Stephanie Shain of the Humane Society of the United States. 'There is no way to tell just by looking at a cat whether she's a feral cat, a family pet allowed outdoors, or one that's been lost.' Maybe, but for now the yeas seem to have it; residents at hearings of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, a public advisory group, last week voted in favor. Not to worry, feline friends. Even if a bill claws its way through the Legislature, Gov. Jim Doyle says he'll scratch it. 'I don't think,' he said, 'Wisconsin should be known as a state where we shoot cats.'

"One would think not."

This is the sort of discussion where animal advocates are in danger of playing into the dichotomy human society creates between animals we pet and animals we eat (or hunt). Hunting is a horror for any animal who loses her life and for the mate or offspring of that animal. It is especially horrific for those who are wounded and die slowly, in agony, for days after being shot. If a hunted animal had been a family pet, grief of the human family is an added negative. But from the perspective of the animal, the affection of that human family has not added to the value of her life, nor does it add to her suffering as she dies. Therefore that factor should not really be relevant as we argue, as animal advocates, against hunting.

I hope animal advocates will respond to articles about proposed cat hunting with questions about the way we treat members of others species whose presence we find inconvenient rather than with letters that further the idea that some species matter more than others.

For many on my list that is a given; they could be insulted that I thought it necessary to write. Others, who work for the welfare of companion animals could also be offended. (You now see why I was not quick to send out this story.) I commend their efforts and realize it is only natural and human to respond with the most passion to the slaughter of animals with whom we share our lives. But I thought it was worthwhile to remind people to question whether their instinctive response to this story aligns with their thinking with regard to the ethical treatment of all.

US News & World Report takes letters at:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/infomain.htm  . Choose "letter to the editor" from the pull-down menu. The story is also appearing in many other papers, perhaps your local paper, and offers a great opportunity for anti-hunting letters.

JUDGING AMY FOLLOW-UP -- LAUREN'S VEGETARIANISM 4/19/05 episode

We can be encouraged by the Tuesday, April 19, episode of the CBS drama series 'Judging Amy', following Lauren's decision, on the April 12 episode, to go vegetarian. Because of the way Lauren's new friends, the Straight-edge kids, present themselves, Amy is worried. But the message, so far, has been that she does not really have much to worry about with Lauren. I urge people to thank the show for the sensitive coverage of this story line. The show takes comments at:

http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml Choose "Judging Amy" from the pull-down menu.

Here's what happened on the episode, regarding Lauren:

Amy gets a call from Lauren's school. Lauren is being sent home -- a short suspension.

We see Amy in the assistant principal's office as Lauren sits outside. We again see various animal-friendly badges on Lauren's clothing.

Assistant principal, Ms Fisher: "It started out as a protest against the food service company. Today was hamburger day, which apparently upset the Straight-edge kids."

Amy: "I am sorry, the who?"

Ms Fisher: "The kids Lauren hangs around with. She has never talked about that?"

Amy: "No, not really."

Ms Fisher: "They don't believe in drinking or taking drugs or having sex. (Amy looks pleased.)

"But they are big into tattoos and piercings and destroying trays of hamburger patties."

Amy: "Lauren did that?"

Ms Fisher: "Along with 20 other kids. My understanding is they were only planning to hold hands and prevent the food service company from making its delivery but there was some shoving -- it got out of hand."

Amy: "I am so sorry Ms Fisher, this is not like her."

Ms Fisher: "I know that. Look, Lauren is good a kid, she is trying to find herself. And as far as extreme philosophies go Straight-edge isn't so bad. But we can't have this kind of disruption on school grounds."

Amy: "I know, I will take care of it."

As they leave the school, Amy expresses her concern to Lauren and grounds her.

That night, Amy's brother, Vincent (he is in his late twenties) comes into Amy's room:

Vincent, incredulous: "Your daughter got sent home from school today?"

Amy: "Yes.

Vincent: Did you kill her?"

Amy: "No. It was a stupid protest. Some people didn't get their hamburgers, that was about the extent of it. The assistant principal is worried about Lauren..."

Vincent congratulates Amy for not flying off the handle and asks her what she is reading.

Amy: "Some stuff I downloaded off the Internet. You ever hear of this?"

Vincent: "Straight-edge? No, what is it?"

Amy: "It is a movement or philosophy. I don't know, you know, like the punk rock scene? They don't believe in smoking or drinking or taking drugs or promiscuous sex or eating meat. They're Lauren's new friends."

Vincent: "Seriously? Lauren's part of a movement!"

Amy: "Don't be so happy about it."

Vincent: "Hey come on. Remember the kind of movement we were involved in? We weren't against drugs, alcohol, sex or hamburgers. She could be doing a lot worse."

Amy: "I know, its just the group-think aspect that bothers me."

Vincent: "You think they are brainwashing her?"

Amy: "No I think she is a sensitive little girl who is easily swayed. I don't think she is revolutionary."

Vincent: "Maybe she is."

Amy: "Vincent!"

Vincent: "She doesn't even know who she is -- how could you know?"

Amy: "That's my point. She is susceptible to these people. She is not thinking for herself."

Vincent: "She stood up to you. That's not easy."

The next night Amy is in Lauren's typically messy teenager's room, picking things off the floor. Protruding out of Lauren's jacket she sees a roll of bills. Lauren walks in and asks what her mother is doing in her things. Amy asks where the money came from.

Amy: "Lauren, there has to be nearly $300 here. I personally watched you empty your savings account last week to buy new boots. So I am going to ask you again..."

Lauren, upset at being accused: "I am not telling you anything, on principal!"

Amy: "Then on principal you're going to be grounded till you are forty. Does this have anything to do with Regan Swope (who gave Lauren the 'Meat is Murder' t-shirt in last week's episode) or the kids who say they don't do drugs?

Lauren: "They don't!"

Amy, yelling: "Then why do you have $300?"

Lauren: "Gosh, why do you always have to think the worst of me? Maybe if I did a drive-by with my cousin you'd be on my side.

Amy: "Graciella? (A kid who came before Amy in her courtroom, in whom Amy has taken a personal interest.) You're mad at me because I am helping Graciella?"

Lauren: "I am just saying you like her!"

Amy: "Graciella has no one, Lauren. You have me, you have Grandma, you have Daddy, you have your uncles, you have your friends, you have your teachers. Lauren, I love you more than anything or anyone in the world!"

Lauren: "Then why are you always so mad at me?"

Amy: "I am not mad! I am scared! All the time! Especially these days! I am scared that I haven't been there with you enough. I haven't been there watching over you, making sure you eat right and do your homework. I am not here when you get home from school. And now that you are getting older I am scared that it is too late for me -- that I have been gone too much and too long and that it is too late!

There is a long pause between them. Lauren looks touched.

Lauren: "School told us we had to pay for the food we destroyed in the cafeteria so we all kicked in fifteen dollars and I am supposed to give it to Ms Fisher tomorrow."

Amy: "Thank you for telling me."

They embrace. It is a tender moment. The overriding message is that Lauren is a good kid, and Amy doesn't need to be scared because her new crowd dresses loud and protests meat.

You can put in a good word for Lauren by going to the Judging Amy page at http://www.cbs.com/primetime/judging_amy/  and voting is this poll:

Is Lauren too bratty?

-- Yes, she needs to learn to respect her mother.

-- No, she's acting like a normal teen.

-- Not sure.

And again, please thank the show for this story-line at

http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml

Choose "Judging Amy" from the pull-down menu.

As more and more teens choose a compassionate diet, millions of mothers will face this issue, and many will model their response on Amy's. The show deserves much appreciation for putting forward a positive message with regard to Lauren's choice.

SIX WILD HORSES GO TO SLAUGHTER -- LA TIMES AND CHICAGO TRIBUNE 4/22/05

Sad news in the Friday April 22 Chicago Tribune (Pg 18) headed "6 wild horses legally rounded up, killed" and in the Los Angeles Times (pg A20) headed "6 Wild Horses Sold by U.S. End Up at a Slaughterhouse."

The Associated Press story opens:

"Wild horses rounded up on federal land in the West and sold to a private owner have been slaughtered for the first time since a new law went into effect, a government official said Thursday."

Celia Boddington, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Washington is quoted:

"This is something we regret and are very disappointed this has happened. We make every possible effort when the horses are sold to make sure the animals are placed in good homes for long-term care...In the bill of sale there is a statement that says the buyer will provide humane care for the animals. But once the animals are sold, they are private property."

We are reminded:

"In December, Congress repealed the 34-year-old ban on slaughtering wild horses that run free across the West....The new law, written by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), was passed at the urging of ranchers concerned about overpopulation of the horses and their effect on the range."

About these particular horses we learn that "a man who identified himself as a minister in Oklahoma told the BLM he intended to use the horses in a program for troubled youth and bought them April 15."

You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-horses22apr22,1,2327410.story

Distress at the slaughter of wild horses is likely to be shared by a large proportion of the American public. The story gives us an opportunity for letters to the editor dealing with related issues -- perhaps focusing on the power of the ranching lobby.

A superb resource is the companion website to the book "Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West." Check out:

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm

The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.com

The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform

HSUS has information on the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, and what you can to help, at:

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/FED_2005_horse_slaughter

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR FRONT PAGE ON HUNTING BLACK RHINOS   4/25/05

The Monday, April 25 Christian Science Monitor has a front page story headed, "Hunt a rhino, save an ecosystem?"

It opens:

"Once on the verge of extinction, black rhinos in South Africa's national parks have made a spectacular comeback. Under the country's aggressive conservation programs, the mammal's population has grown by more than 50 percent in the past decade. But that success has brought a new challenge: how to control a population in limited conservation space.

"Now South Africa is weighing a controversial measure that would allow hunters to kill five old male black rhinos a year, which could raise

$200,000 per kill. Allowing hunting, some experts say, has helped resurrect the white rhino population, which now stands at 11,000 worldwide, from a low of 200 at the turn of the 20th century.

"Supporters say it can also raise much-needed conservation cash. But critics say rhinos and other animals in abundance here are still endangered elsewhere in Africa."

We read:

"Some animal-rights organizations say that killing should be a last resort.

"Considering that animals like black rhino and elephant remain endangered across the continent as a whole, they argue, excess animals should be moved to other parks with small populations, like reserves in Mozambique and Angola where large game was virtually poached out during long civil wars."

But eventually the article gets back to the money: "Black rhinos could bring an estimated $ 200,000 each, say hunting organizations."

You'll find the whole article, including a picture of two rather cute small captive black rhinos, on line at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0425/p01s04-woaf.html

The front page story provides a great opportunity for letters to the editor about our treatment of other species. The Christian Science Monitor takes letters at: http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE FRONT PAGE ON CRUELTY OF BEAR BILE INDUSTRY -- 4/25/05

There is a front page story in the Monday, April 25, San Francisco Chronicle headed, "Freeing China's caged bile bears

Animal activists aim to curtail trade in traditional remedy." Inside, on page 8, there is a related story headed, "State battles lucrative bear bile trade."

The paper has printed photos, such as one of a bear stuffed into a metal cage hardly the size of her body, which you can view on line at:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2005/04/25/MNGFECEIVO1.DTL&o=0

The front page story opens:

"Chengdu, China -- Jill Robinson's life was forever changed when she stole away from her tour group on a Chinese bear bile farm and descended a flight of stairs to a dark basement, where she saw the dim outlines of cages.

"'I actually didn't understand what I was seeing at first,' Robinson says. 'Then it made me sick to my stomach.'

"Dozens of bears, kept alive only for their bile, were trapped in cages so small they couldn't move, their bellies spiked with crude, dirty, often- infected devices to allow the farmers to "milk" their bile twice a day and sell the fluid secreted by the liver as medicine.

"Suddenly, one of the bears reached a paw out of its cage. Unaware that moon bears, an endangered Asian black bear species named for the yellow crescent on its chest, are among the most aggressive of bears, Robinson spontaneously grabbed the animal's paw and held it. She marvels that she still has her arm.

"'In years later, it has shaken me and made me really believe there was a message there,' she says.

"Now the soft-spoken Briton, who went on to found Animals Asia Foundation, based in Hong Kong, is pressing the Chinese government to ban bear farming outright before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and close down the farms where, according to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, 7,000 caged bears are being milked for their bile.

You can read the whole article on line at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/25/MNGFECEIVO1.DTL

The story directs readers to the Animals Asia website, http://www.animalsasia.com  where you can learn more about the Moon Bear Rescue Center in Chengdu, and how you can help.

The Pg A8 story opens:

"The world's appetite for bear bile and bear parts extends to the Bay Area and has even led to the hunting and killing of California's wild bears, state officials and animal rights activists say.

"Lt. Kathy Ponting, field supervisor for the California Department of Fish and Game's undercover Special Operations unit, says game wardens regularly find black bear carcasses in the wild with only their gall bladders and paws cut away.

"When WildAid, an animal rights group based in San Francisco, sent an undercover investigator into Chinatown last year, two shopkeepers readily offered up vials in velvet-lined boxes with a picture of a bear on the lid, claiming the powdered bear bile was from farms in China, said Executive Director Peter Knights.

"One reason wild bear parts are prized is that some adherents of traditional Chinese medicine believe that by eating animal parts, they will take on the characteristics of the animal. Yet because California law bans the sale or purchase of bear parts -- with penalties ranging up to a $10,000 fine and three years in state prison -- the trade is clandestine and it is impossible to gauge the full extent of the problem.

"But in 2001, when the World Society for the Protection of Animals conducted a probe of traditional Chinese medicine shops in Canada and four U.S. cities -- Chicago, New York, Washington and San Francisco -- it found that 91 percent of the shops surveyed sold some form of bear part, including farmed bile powder, bile medicines and whole gall bladders."

You can read it on line at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/25/MNG9ACEIJF1.DTL

The stories provide a great opportunity for letters to the editor on a wide range of animal cruelty issues. Moon Bears are not the only animals that live in hideously small cages. We have animals used for food living in similar conditions in the US. Check out www.factoryfarming.com

The San Francisco Chronicle takes at letters@sfchronicle.com and advises "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication."

NY NEWSDAY ARTICLE AND COLUMN LOOK AT ALF AND SHAC ACTIVITY 4/26/05

New York Newsday, the paper with the eighth largest circulation in the USA, has two related articles in the Tuesday, April 26 edition. (Pg 8) One is a news piece, by Bart Jones, headed, "Wrongdoing for a cause? Animal group is focus of law enforcement probe after it cites harassment, theft from lab executive." The other, a column by Paul Vitello, is headed "A disservice to animal rights."

"Wrongdoing for a cause" opens:

"Nassau County police and the FBI are investigating allegations that a radical animal rights organization that is on the FBI watchlist is waging a campaign of intimidation against a pharmaceutical company executive and his family on Long Island.

"The Animal Liberation Front last week posted on its Web site a communiqué claiming some of its members followed the executive's wife to her job, entered her car, stole a credit card and funneled $20,000 of the family's funds to charities. The man works for Manhattan-based Forest Laboratories Inc., which also has offices in Commack, Hauppauge and Farmingdale.

"The organization said it had targeted Forest Laboratories because the firm does business with a company that performs tests on animals."

(Not just any company -- the company is the notorious firm Huntingdon Life Sciences. You can find out more about the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaign and view horrifying footage from the Huntingdon laboratories -- a beagle being punched in the face by a scientist and a primate conscious on an operating table with her chest cut wide open -- at http://www.SHAC.net  )

The article tells us that the ALF says it "inflicts economic damage to those who profit from the misery and exploitation of animals."

We read that John Miller, executive director of the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, has "said the association had accredited Huntingdon and that it met all standards for acceptable animal research practices." And of the ALF he said,

"They operate in much the same fashion as al-Qaida, working in cells that don't communicate with each other much."

His comments could be misleading since Huntingdon has paid fines for animal cruelty, and, unlike al-Qaida, the ALF in the USA has never hurt anybody.

You can read the whole article on line at:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lianim0426,0,5651218.story?coll=ny-main-tabheads

Paul Vitello's related column, "A disservice to animal rights" opens with a famous quote from Ingrid Newkirk, head of People of the Ethical Treatment of Animals: "When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

Reporters often cite only the last phrase of that sentence, in order to give the impression that PETA people feel that a rat is in every way equal to a boy. Vitello's accurate citation sets the tone for his animal friendly piece.

He begins:

"Except for that part about the boy - and that is mainly due to a bias in favor of our favorite species - you cannot argue much with this statement.

"If you have ever owned a dog or a cat, or spent just a little time observing the social life of pigs on a farm, you know that animals feel things, and feel them intensely.

"They don't just feel pain or hunger. My dog is happy when praised, wretched when scolded, reproachful when ignored. He knows and shows up whenever he is discussed. A question such as, 'Did you already take him out, or should I?' - though it requires that he find himself behind the grammatical curtain of an objective personal pronoun - summons him from anywhere in the house.

"You don't have to be a member of an activist animal rights group to know this, or to extrapolate from experience as a pet owner a respect for the innate sensitivity of all animals - including those we butcher for food, the 20 million a year we sacrifice in laboratories in the name of science and those that are euthanized by the tens of millions each year to keep the population of strays in check."

"All animals like being alive as much as we do;"

He then continues that sentence with a generalization about our movement's attitude to extremist activity: "and the growing movement toward improving conditions for them, known generally as the animal protection movement, hates it when extremists undermine the effort by doing violent or stupid stuff."

Vitello quotes Professor Paul Waldau, from the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University in Boston, who says of the Animal Liberation Front: "I certainly understand feelings of anger, but organizations like the Animal Liberation Front suffer terribly from the moral inconsistency of using violence to achieve a more nonviolent world."

Waldau continues, "If I get 20 calls a month from members of the media, 18 of them concern acts by fringe groups like these, and two are about the issues we look at."

Though one can understand Waldau's disappointment, that statement hardly seems to argue against Animal Liberation Front activity. Surely it would not be better if he got just the two calls per month. The ALF brings press, and gives us at least the chance to turn the conversation away from a discussion about the badly behaving activists, towards one about the badly behaving vivisectionists, the ethics of vivisection and other animal abuse, and to animal suffering.

Vitello's column, which (thanks to the interview with Waldau) mentions that "industrial farming imposes cruelties on pigs, cows and chickens" is a perfect example.

You can read Vitello's column at:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-livit264233789apr26,0,1666062.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

The coverage gives us an opportunity to keep this discussion alive with letters to the editor. Vitello's sympathetic column deserves some words of appreciation -- and studies have shown that papers are far more likely to print laudatory letters rather than those critical of their coverage. But we should not waste the opportunity to let Newsday readers know a little more about Huntingdon Life Sciences and the world of vivisection.

Newsday take letters at:

http://cf.newsday.com/newsdayemail/email.cfm

WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE ON "CONSUMER FREEDOM" 4/27/05

Many people have heard of "Consumer Freedom," the tobacco and restaurant lobby group that devotes itself largely to attacking pro-veggie groups such as PETA, and anti drink-driving groups such as Mothers Against Drink Driving. In response to an ad blitz by the group, the Wednesday, April 27, Washington Post carried a lead story (Pg E1) headed, "The Escalating Obesity Wars. Nonprofit's Tactics, Funding Sources Spark Controversy."

The article tells us that in its ads Consumer Freedom describes itself as a "nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting consumer choices and promoting common sense." However "The group was founded about 10 years ago with tobacco-company and restaurant money to fight smoking curbs in restaurants" but has "shifted its focus to food and beverage issues, raised by concerns about obesity, mad cow disease and genetically modified products."

We learn, "The group and its ads are the brainchild of Richard Berman.... Philip Morris USA Inc. pledged $600,000 -- most of the seed money -- for Berman's group in 1995." And we read that to the Washington Post, "Berman declined to give specifics about who funds the Center for Consumer Freedom."

And we learn that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group funded by several educational foundations, asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the Center for Consumer Freedom's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status: "The watchdog group said Berman has used the center to funnel money to himself and his company, a violation of federal tax law that bars companies or individuals from running a nonprofit for their private benefit. The organization also said that the group's activities were solely to promote the causes of restaurants and food producers, not consumers. Its activities, the organization said, are 'not remotely charitable.'"

The article discusses some of Consumer Freedom's advertising campaigns. You can read it on line at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601259.html

It gives us a nice opportunity for letters about the effect of the fast food industry on human health and on our humanity -- specifically our treatment of other animals.

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."