|
| ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS
JUNE 2005 NEW YORK TIMES LEAD STORY ON GRASS-FED HUMANELY RAISED FARM ANIMALS 6/1/05 The Wednesday, June 1, New York Times has a story on the front page of the "Dining In" section about humanely raised meat. It is headed, "Give 'em a Chance, Steers Will Eat Grass" and is written by Kim Severson. We read that "Although vegetables and fruit grown near the city have been the stars of the Greenmarkets for almost 30 years, pork, beef and lamb from local pastures are fast becoming the new darlings of the stands.... "The number of beef cattle raised on pasture is less than 1 percent of the 33 million animals slaughtered in the United States each year, said Jo Robinson, an author who runs eatwild.com, devoted to the grass-fed movement. But it's a fast-growing slice of the beef pie: four years ago, she said, only about 50 farmers were dedicated to raising grass-fed beef for market, and now there are over 1,000. "Since 2000 the number of Greenmarket farmers selling pasture-raised protein -- eggs, beef, lamb and pork -- has grown from 9 to 25. All the animals are raised no more than a half-day's driving distance from New York, and by Greenmarket rules the farms must be small and independently owned. The farms are sustainable, which means essentially that none of the animals eat on feedlots and that they spend time outside, where their waste helps fields and pastures stay healthy. They are given no growth hormones, and antibiotics only when they are sick." The issue of slaughter is raised. About a local pig farmer, Severson writes: "Then there's the difficulty of finding a place to slaughter the animals that is close enough so that transportation costs don't eat into the profits and long drives don't add to the animals' stress. Ms. Yezzi and Mr. Small, whose practices are certified humane by a nonprofit organization called Humane Farm Animal Care, take most of their pigs to a government-approved slaughterhouse about 20 minutes away. The costs for such careful treatment mean that the couple pay more than $200 a pig just for slaughtering and processing. The extra labor, the extra time and the land required to raise the rarer breeds, along with the higher processing costs, mean that the couple are paying almost 10 times as much as their competition at larger commercial operations in the Midwest, Mr. Yezzi said. That's why a pork chop can cost $11 a pound. But it's a price that Mr. Yezzi's customers don't seem to mind paying." (It is important to remember that not all grass-fed or organic meat comes with a Humane Farm Animal Certification. Those unfamiliar with the practices of some of the larger commercial slaughter operations should check out the 2001 Washington Post story, "They Die Piece by Piece" available on line at http://tinyurl.com/d2mtm or the horrifying undercover footage from the US's largest kosher slaughterhouse one can view at: http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/ ) The Times article tells us: Local pasture-raised animals are so appealing that some people who once shunned factory-raised meat are adding beef and pork back to their diets. It presents a great opportunity for letters reminding people about lives of the other 99% of animals raised for food, and singing the praises of plant-based diets. A good resource for information on that issue is the site www.FactoryFarming.com. You can read the full New York Times piece on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/dining/01anim.html The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.
THE EMOTIONAL WORLD OF FARM ANIMALS -- PBS "The Emotional World of Farm Animals" is airing across the US on PBS stations. Check your local listings to find out when your local PBS station will air the documentary. One way to do that is on www.tvguide.com . You can enter your zipcode in to get your local listings, and enter "The Emotional World of Farm Animals" into the site's search engine. The following description of the documentary comes from Animal Place, a sanctuary in Northern California: "The Emotional World of Farm Animals is a delightful documentary for viewers of all ages about the thinking and feeling side of animals that are all too often just viewed as food. Jeffrey Masson, author of When Elephants Weep and Dogs Never Lie About Love, leads viewers through the personal journey he underwent while writing his latest book, 'The Pig Who Sang to The Moon.' This journey into the sentient, emotional lives of farm animals brings Masson to animal sanctuaries around the country where caregivers and the animals themselves tell their harrowing stories of rescue and escape . Masson delves into the rich ancestry of these curious and intelligent animals and interviews top experts in animal behavior who offer scientific perspectives on these amazing creatures." Terrific feedback about the show could encourage PBS to do a national airing. PBS takes feedback at: http://www.pbs.org/aboutsite/aboutsite_emailform.html Those in Los Angeles should thank KLCS for the June 2 airing, at: http://www.klcs.org/about/contact.html And those elsewhere could do the animals a great favor by encouraging their local stations to air the documentary. It can be purchased on line at: http://www.animalplace.org/apvideo.html
WILD OATS EGGS GO CAGE FREE AND UNITED EGG PRODUCERS PROTEST 6-3-05 This week Wild Oats, the third largest natural foods grocer in the US, announced that it will only sell cage-free eggs in its stores. The Friday June 3 Denver Post (from Wild Oats's home state of Colorado) includes an article headed, "Wild Oats ruffling egg firm's feathers ." It tells us: "United Egg Producers, an Atlanta-based trade group, on Thursday blasted the natural-foods grocer, saying its move eliminates consumer choice, increases costs and spreads misinformation." We read: "United Egg Producers sent a letter to Wild Oats chief executive Perry Odak requesting a meeting at which it could explain its own Animal Care Certified program. The program allows caging of chickens, but cage sizes have increased by 50 percent in the past few years, United Egg Producers spokesman Mitch Head said. While he could not provide the cage size, he said they are typically larger than a sheet of notebook paper. Caging chickens allows producers greater control over their health, diet and behavior, he said." The article concludes with this damning line: "The Better Business Bureau has ruled that the Animal Care Certified logo is misleading and purports a higher standard than actually exists." For more information on the misleading "Animal Care Certified" logo and photos of the horrendous living conditions for hens who produce eggs sold under that logo, please visit www.EggScam.com You can read the whole Denver Post article at: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_2776823 And you can send a supportive letter, or a letter singing the praises of plant-based diets, to the Denver Post editor at: openforum@denverpost.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. HSUS has asked that we thank Wild Oats for its cage-free egg policy and
has a page set up to make that easy. Go to: https://community.hsus.org/campaign/US_2005_wildoats_cageless
USA TODAY AND AZ REPUBLIC ON ZOOS AND HAWTHORN ELEPHANTS 6/3/05 The Friday, June 3 edition of USA Today (the country's most widely distributed newspaper) includes two stories (both page 3A) on captive wild animals. The first is headed, "Claws come out in fights over zoos." It opens with a tale of Tinkerbell: "Tinkerbell the porcupine wasn't performing well during educational shows at the Phoenix Zoo three years ago, and keepers decided to reduce her diet. They didn't want to hurt the little pincushion -- just give her some incentive. But Tinkerbell died of starvation, and her death has become part of a dispute over the care of animals at the 125-acre exhibition. The furor prompted the Arizona Zoological Society to commission a review by independent experts. The report is due this month. It also has brought an investigation by the Agriculture Department, which enforces the nation's Animal Welfare Act. "But the Phoenix Zoo is hardly alone in its turmoil: During the past three years, wildlife menageries and aquariums across the nation have come under fire after a series of animal deaths and claims of neglect and mismanagement. Investigations have stretched from the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., to zoos in other cities, including Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit, Topeka and Toledo, Ohio." The article discusses some of the deaths in other zoos. It includes quotes from the zoo industry suggesting everything is fine and quotes from the animal protection community suggesting otherwise. Elephants get particular attention as they fare so badly in captivity, particularly in cold climates. The second article focuses on them. It is headed, "New homes for elephants spur debate." It reiterates much of what we read in the Washington Post article earlier this week about the Hawthorn Herd: "The fate of a dozen elephants in Illinois has become part of the debate over whether wild animals in captivity are being cared for properly -- and even whether they can be -- far from their natural habitat. Elephants owned by Hawthorn Corp., which rents elephants and lions to circuses, have been bound for new homes since Hawthorn reached an agreement last year with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hawthorn in Richmond, Ill., admitted to 19 violations of the Animal Welfare Act, including inadequate veterinary care. Some of its elephants died of tuberculosis. Hawthorn paid a $200,000 fine and agreed to give up its elephants, 11 females and a male. Hawthorn can send them to any USDA-approved facility and has said three will go to Endangered Ark in Hugo, Okla., a home for endangered animals established by the family that founded Carson & Barnes Circus. The USDA fined Carson & Barnes after an animal rights group videotaped a trainer hitting elephants." (That footage actually shows more -- including a trainer encouraging his protégé to beat the elephants, hurt them, and make them scream. You can view it on line at www.circuses.com ) The article tells us that some people are pushing for the Hawthorn Herd to be sent to The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee (Check out www.elephants.com and that negotiations are continuing. Those who would like to support that move should send short, polite letters to the Secretary of Agriculture insisting that the elephants deserve a home that is not run by those who have been fined for abusing elephants. (In your own words.) Your letters could make all the difference in the world for those elephants. Email is only best for dealing with the media, which functions in real time. Letters to government bodies should be mailed or faxed, though of course email is much better than nothing. Here is the address: The Honorable Michael O. Johanns Secretary of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building 12th Street and Jefferson Drive S.W., Rm. 200-A Washington, DC 20250 202-720-3631 202-720-2166 (fax) You can read the USA Today stories at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-02-zoo-fight_x.htm and http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-02-zoo-fight-side_x.htm The Zoo story, which comes from Arizona, is also on the Arizona Republic website at: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0603zooproblems03.html# The stories present a great opportunity for letters to the editor questioning the keeping of wild animals captive for human entertainment. Good resources on the issue are www.SaveWildElephants.com and "Zoos: Pitiful Prisons" at http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=67 USA Today take letters at: http://asp.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18 The Arizona Republic takes letters up to 200 words at: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/sendaletter.html
CHICAGO TRIBUNE COVERS ANIMAL LAW 6/5/05 The Sunday, June 5, Chicago Tribune has two complimentary articles about animal law. (Pg Q1). The main article is headed, " Paw law; Is your pet entitled to his day in court? The answer: Maybe." We read that "animal advocates and attorneys along with their clients are making headway in getting the legal system to recognize what society increasingly believes: Animals are more than just property. They're like family." It discusses veterinary malpractice cases, and tells us, "The largest damage award in a vet malpractice case is $39,000, handed down last year in Orange County, Calif." Terri Marcellaro, the attorney on that case is quoted: "Part of the problem before was that it was believed that animals had a market value of whatever somebody paid for them. And now the law is starting to recognize that's not the case. So the law can call a dog a piece of property all it wants, but at least there's a recognition that it's a very valuable piece of property that cannot be replaced by simply going out and buying another dog." We learn that the American Veterinary Medical Association, the trade group that represent veterinarians, takes the position that the monetary worth of a dog can be determined, the animal's family membership not being one of the factors, but rather that "courts should take into account the purchase price of an animal, its age and health, breeding status, pedigree and any special training or utility it has, such as whether it's a service dog." A spokesperson from that organization is quoted: "There's some flexibility in terms of age and health, whether you're going to breed. But it doesn't really go into how are you going to determine real monetary value." The related story "Early steps taken on road to animal law" (Section Q, 3A) focuses on the Bob Barker Endowment Fund for the Study of Animal Rights Law and makes the interesting distinction between animal rights law and animal protection law. We read that Barker "recently gave Northwestern University $1 million to endow a course in animal-rights law. He also has provided $1 million gifts to the University of California at Los Angeles, Duke University, Stanford University and Columbia University. The goal, Barker said, was to further the study of animal-rights law, an emerging field, one that is sometimes confused with the more established area of animal-protection law." Attorney Steve Wise explains: "Animal-rights law doesn't really exist yet because non-human animals don't have legal rights." You can read the articles on line at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/q/chi-0506050510jun05,1,4826676.story AND http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/q/chi-0506050507jun05,1,7120442.story The articles open the door for letters on any aspect of animal protection or animal rights. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR OP-ED ON CHICKEN ABUSE -- 6/6/05 The well-respected Christian Science Monitor includes an op-ed in the Monday June 6 edition (pg 9) headed, "Time to Crack Down on Chicken Abuse.' It is by HSUS's Paul Shapiro. Shapiro reminds readers of the wealth of new information on the intelligence of birds, then discusses their suffering on factory farms and in slaughterhouses. He writes: "Among the chickens who face the most abusive conditions are egg-laying hens - the national flock size is roughly 300 million birds. They are typically housed in battery cages that don't allow the animals enough space even to spread their wings. With no opportunity to engage in many of their natural behaviors, including nesting, dust bathing, perching, and foraging, these birds endure lives of daily frustration and suffering. "Chickens raised for meat - known by the agribusiness industry as "broilers" - are exploited in even greater numbers than laying hens. More than 8 billion of these birds are raised and slaughtered in the US annually, almost all of which have been selectively bred for extremely rapid growth. This forced rapid growth, exacerbated by routine antibiotic use for growth promotion, takes an enormous toll on the birds' welfare. We also learn, "Chickens raised for food are exempt from both the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Furthermore, standard agricultural practices used for chickens are exempted from most states' anticruelty statutes." He suggests that if the poultry will not voluntarily begin acting to improve animal welfare, the government must take action, and recommends While it's now becoming the norm within the scientific realm to recognize these animals' cognitive abilities and their behavioral needs, the birds are still treated as if they were inanimate objects. If the poultry industry will not voluntarily begin acting to improve animal welfare, the government must take action and recommends: "Two good first steps would be to phase out the use of battery cages for egg-laying hens and to include poultry under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act - lending credence to the notion that these birds' suffering is an important issue." You can read the whole piece on line at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0606/p09s02-coop.html It presents a great opportunity for supportive letters to the editor, ideally singing the praises of plant-based diets. The Christian Science Monitor takes letters at: http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4
MATHEW SCULLY ON FACTORY FARMING AND MORAL VALUES ON NPR'S THE CONNECTION 6/7/05 Today, Tuesday June 7, "The Connection" a show on the Boston NPR affiliate WBUR aired an interview with Matthew Scully. You can go to http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2005/06/20050607_b_main.asp and click on the yellow button "Listen to Show" to listen on line. You can also view "Photographs of Animals on Factory Farms" on that web page. The "Contact Us" button takes you to http://www.theconnection.org/contactus/ . Please thank the show for having Scully on. Here is the show's website promotional description: GUESTS: "Matthew Scully, former deputy director of presidential speechwriting for President George W. Bush, former literary editor of The National Review and author of 'Dominion: The Power of Man, The Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.' His most recent work is an article in The American Conservative magazine, 'Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism -- for Animals.'" TOPIC: "AN UNLIKELY ADVOCATE" "Matthew Scully doesn't fit the profile of someone who advocates for animal welfare. Until this past summer he was a senior speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Before that he was an editor of the conservative magazine, National Review. "But Scully takes the cause of animal protection seriously -- so much so that he has made it his mission to convince fellow Republicans that the money-saving efficiencies of factory farming pose serious moral issues that his party needs to face. "Republicans generally ridicule the cause of animal protection -- claiming it belongs to those far on the Left. But Scully argues that conservatives, with all their talk of compassion and values are a natural ally for the cows, chickens, and pigs caged in ungodly conditions." Again -- please thank the show for the coverage: http://www.theconnection.org/contactus/
PITBULLS ON FNC'S O'REILLY FACTOR Tuesday June 7, the O'Reilly Factor, on the Fox News Channel, included a segment on pitbulls, with two animal rights guests. This is from the show's website: "Personal Story Segment Pit bulls under attack Guests: Actress Linda Blair & Lisa Lange, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals One of the top biting breeds of dogs is the pit bull, and now this breed is making news again after killing a 12-year old boy in San Francisco." Linda Blair has been fighting breed specific bans, particularly in Denver. PETA supports bans on pitbulls but will does not support legislation that results in any loving dogs being forced out of loving homes. O'Reilly takes comments at oreilly@foxnews.com and reads many on the air. He asks that they be short and pithy. A large response to coverage of animal issues, and positive response to guests from the animal protection community, will encourage similar coverage in the future. I send a big thank you to Lori Golden from "Pet Press" for
making sure we knew about the segment.
THE AUSTRALIAN: "SAVE THE WHALES , HARPOON A JAPANESE SUSHI HUNTER" - June 8 As Japan pushes to expand its whaling rights, doubling its take of minke whales "for scientific purposes" and adding humpback whales to its kill, the national paper "The Australian" (conservative) has run a satirical column headed "Save the whales, harpoon a Japanese sushi hunter," which points out the ridiculous arguments the whaling community makes in support of its efforts. I thought it worth sharing with my whole list, not just the Aussies. I will paste it below. I hope Australian animal advocates and perhaps other anti-whaling activists on this list will pick up on the serious points and respond with letters to the editor. The Australian takes letters at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aus_letters.htm The Australian Wednesday, June 8 The Wry Side -- Pg. 13 Save the whales, harpoon a Japanese sushi hunter By Emma Tom Members of Japan's pro-whale hunting lobby aren't a popular bunch. Their critics just can't seem to get a grip on the fact that luncheon meat is a perfectly acceptable byproduct of scientific research. In 1 1/2 weeks, the International Whaling Commission will meet in South Korea, where Japan will argue that it be allowed to double its minke whale massacre and add endangered humpback and fin whales to its sushi trains ... sorry, legitimate scientific laboratories. Given the likelihood of a vote in Japan's favour, it's high time anti-whaling countries such as Australia made more of an effort to understand Japanese whalers' methods and motivations, perhaps by taking a page out of the pro-whale hunting lobby's cookbook and conducting a program of limited, research slaughter. Under this modest proposal, knowledge-hungry Australian scientists would be able to hunt and kill several hundred Japanese whale scientists per year to obtain important information such as how old they are, where they live and how their loins taste when marinated, barbecued and served with a feisty shiraz. It will be a controversial move, but killing Japanese pro-whalers and dissecting them into delicious bite-sized pieces is the only way to help solve enduring mysteries about this enigmatic species. Such as how they think it's possible to nourish a local custom by eating its core ingredient into extinction. Or why they continue ignoring academic research questioning the notion that whaling has deep cultural roots in Japan in the first place. (Keiko Hirata from the California State University is just one scholar who claims whale meat was eaten by large numbers of Japanese only in the dark decade after World War II.) Of course once these tests have been conducted, all derivatives of the research should be eaten immediately to avoid waste. One possibility would be to follow the lead of the nattily titled Women's Forum for Fish, which met in Tokyo last weekend to discuss scrummy Free Willy recipes such as whale blood soup. "Eating a whale is the same thing as killing and eating a cow," said one orca-eater from the forum (which was sponsored by the pro-whaler lobby). The big problem with this argument is that there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world compared with fewer than 800,000 minke whales. Japan's pro-whalers, on the other hand, are growing in strength and numbers and will have no trouble sustaining the odd slaying. They'll make great school snacks a la whale meat, which was recently re-introduced in 280 Japanese educational institutions after a 20-year absence. As with the whale lunch special, fillets of pro-whalers are bound to come up an absolute treat coated in breadcrumbs and fried with a little garlic and ginger. There may be a backlash once the press starts running photos of dying Japanese scientists flopping around in pools of blood with harpoons hanging out of their spinal columns and grenades exploding inside their brains and so on. Whingeing, dolphin-yoga types will probably start tacking "Save the Whalers" stickers to their bumper bars and calling for whaler sanctuaries. They may argue hunting humans is wrong because our high intelligence puts us in a category different from other species made of meat. They may even suggest our scientific program is just a backdoor attempt to kick-start commercial cannibalism. But fortunately the pro-whale hunting lobby has shown logic is no longer necessary when defending self-centred and short-sighted action from international censure. "So what if it's possible to study human behaviour by non-lethal means?" we'll say. "So what if our methods are rejected by every serious research community in the universe? The only way to investigate the merits of carnage-based research is to engage in a protracted bloodbath. Now stand back or you'll get desiccated liver all over your nice, white extinction statistics." Obviously we're not recommending that all Japanese pro-whalers be
butchered and eaten. But there does need to be a balance between the
rights of these lobbyists to exist and the rights of those of us who have
an overwhelming urge to aim large, pointy objects in their general
direction.
NEW SCIENTIST 12-PAGE SPREAD, "ANIMALS AND US" -- June 4-10 The June 4-10 edition of The New Scientist (on stands now) has an extraordinary 12 page spread, including eight separate articles under the heading "Animals and Us." The lead article, headed "Forward to the animal revolution" sets the tone for the spread. It goes through the various uses of animals, and how human society has been dependent on them. Then it asks: "Why all the fuss? What's wrong with the way we interact with animals at the moment? Nothing, if you don't accept that animals have their own feelings and emotions, or accept it but still don't care. But if you do care, then you will realize that the moral relationship we have with animals is deeply troubled. It becomes impossible to maintain moral blindness to the way we treat them." You'll find that lead article on line at: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625025.700 I call the spread extraordinary as the line-up of articles is one you might expect in an animal protection magazine, not a mainstream scientific publication. Perhaps most notable is one by Professor Gary Francione headed "You Hypocrites!" and sub-headed, "By granting that animals have minds similar to ours, it looks as if we are evolving in our moral relationships with other species. Don't be fooled." He argues that whether or not other animals have human-like minds is not relevant to our exploitation of them, and ends his essay with the Jeremy Bentham quote, "The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer." (Pg 51.) There is an interview with Jane Goodall, headed "Close Encounters" (Pg 46) which you can read on line at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18625025.900 The other articles are: -- "It's a dog's life" by Ian Duncan, about testing animal sentience and preferences (Pg 45) -- "Suspicious minds" by Frans de Waal, which discusses what he calls "anthrodenial," which is "blindness to the human-like characteristics of other animals and to our own animal-like characteristics. (Pg 48) --- "Me and my pet" by Lucy Middleton, about the intimate relationships people have with their companion animals. (Pg 49) --- "Practical passions" by Alison George, on Temple Grandin's work to reform slaughterhouses (Pg 50) AND -- "Of Burns and bats," by philosopher Simon Blackburn, sub-headed "What if we can never understand the inner world of other animals? Where does that leave our relationship with them?" (pg 53.) I thoroughly enjoyed the spread and recommend picking up the magazine.
And please send an appreciative letter to the editor. The New Scientist
takes letters at letters@newscientist.com
and advises, "Include your address and telephone numbers, and a
reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to
edit letters."
CHICAGO TRIBUNE ON ALF LABORATORY ATTACKS 6/5/05 There is a long and somewhat balanced article headed "Ground zero of labs vs. animal-rights activists" on the front page of the Thursday, June 9, Chicago Tribune.
It opens: "The shaky, amateurish video shows everything in graphic detail: Four masked people break into darkened university labs, pour toxic chemicals onto computers and stacks of files, and release hundreds of research rats and mice. They spray-paint walls with slogans such as 'Science not Sadism' and 'Free the Animals.' The November break-in at the University of Iowa's Spence Laboratories--an act for which there have been no arrests but for which the group Animal Liberation Front, or ALF, has claimed responsibility--is characterized by university and law-enforcement officials as terrorism. "The incident has made the University of Iowa, a school in the heart of one of America's most farm-centered, meat-producing states, ground zero in a national battleground over animal-based research at taxpayer-funded institutions. "At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, animal-rights activists are protesting research getting under way that uses pigs to measure the impact of police stun guns. No violent incidents have been reported in Madison, but officials there have increased security at research buildings. It mentions the upcoming trial of an activist who released hundreds of minks in 1997 and the current trial of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty campaigners. It shares some of the ALF battle cries: "'Let this message be clear to all who victimize the innocent: We're watching. And by axe, drill, or crowbar--we're coming through your door. Stop or be stopped,' the ALF Web site warned before listing the home addresses of the Iowa scientists who experiment on animals." It tells us that Leana Stormont, "the face and voice of the push to stop animal experimentation at the University of Iowa...gives rational and reasoned answers to most questions." Without giving a blanket condemnation to all animal research for any purpose, she says that "most animal experimentation is senseless." We read: "She rails against legislation that requires universities to report publicly only on experiments on animals such as dogs and monkeys but does not require that they report the number of rodents and birds used in research. And she argues that some of the most effective drugs--aspirin and penicillin--were once almost scrapped because animals did not respond well to them." The article also quotes a cardiologist who stresses the importance of animal experimentation and calls those protesting against it "terrorists." John Webster is quoted defending his research using pigs to test Taser guns, but we learn: "Terry Young, an epidemiologist and professor of population health sciences, noisily withdrew from a research project with Webster in March after learning that Webster was leading the stun-gun study. 'It hit a very sensitive nerve,' Young said, arguing that the study is unnecessary and would be cruel to the pigs." You can read the whole article on line at: It presents a great opportunity for letters about some of the trivial purposes for which humans makes other animals suffer and/or about the irony of the terrorist label being applied to people who have never hurt anybody. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform There is also a vote on the left hand side of the web page, asking if
the Animal Liberation Front goes too far. Within the mainstream of our
movement there are those who think the ALF damages our movement's
reputation, and those who think that the ALF's ability to get press --
articles such as this one, on the front page of a leading newspaper, in
which the horrors going on in laboratories are at least discussed -- more
than validate their efforts. I think both viewpoints are valid -- perhaps
something to think about when you vote.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR QUESTIONS THE WISDOM OF ZOOS -- 6/9/05 The Christian Science Monitor, which has notably been giving animal issues much attention lately, has a story on page 3 of the Thursday, June 9 edition headed, "Nagging questions on the wisdom of zoos." It takes a balanced look at zoos, mentioning the three recent elephant deaths at Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo and continuing: "But the elephants are only the largest examples in a string of publicized animal deaths here, including three langur monkeys, two gorillas, a camel, and a marmoset, and they've sparked several investigations into zoo practices, elicited a storm of letters to the editor, and fueled a long-running debate about whether elephants - or, for that matter, other animals - belong behind bars." There is a strong quote from PETA's Debbie Leahy: "Zoos are really just a depressing place. You go in and see animals deprived of everything that's important to them." A recurring theme in the article is zoo visitors noting that the enclosures look small and the animals don't look happy but coming back to the basically selfish human instinct and asking "But, how else can people like us who can't travel to Australia and Africa get to see them?" You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0609/p03s02-ussc.html Large reader responses to animal issue stories will keep them coming. The Christian Science Monitor takes letters at: http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4 There is also an online vote on that web page: "Have zoos outlived their usefulness as institutions?" No -- It's still important to preserve endangered species and raise awareness of wildlife issues. Yes -- Even if they are educational, it's just not appropriate anymore to keep animals behind bars." Please vote on behalf of the animals -- they lose more in life at the
zoo than we gain from looking at them.
"LAWSUIT TARGETS TREATMENT OF SOWS" IN LOS ANGELES TIMES 6/14/05 On the cover of the Tuesday, June 14, Los Angeles Times Business section (C1) there is a story headed," Lawsuit Targets Farm's Treatment of Sows; An activist group might learn at a hearing today whether it can proceed with its case against a pork producer." It opens: "California: home of unhappy sows? "That's the question at the heart of a lawsuit that pits an animal rights group against a Central Valley pork farm over the living conditions of pregnant pigs. "The suit, filed by Farm Sanctuary, which operates a shelter for rescued farm animals in Orland, Calif., has been wending its way through Los Angeles County Superior Court since September. In a hearing today, the group may learn whether it can proceed with its case, which seeks to apply the state's animal cruelty law to force Corcpork Inc. of Corcoran to stop housing its 9,000 pregnant sows in individual metal stalls. "Farm Sanctuary says the sows, weighing 400 to 600 pounds, can suffer bone loss, joint damage and even depression as a result of spending most of their lives in containers barely larger than themselves." We learn that "the case could set broad precedents" because "the outcome could determine whether the 35-year-old anti-cruelty statute can apply to farm animals. In addition, the case could serve as a test of Proposition 64, a voter initiative passed last fall that set curbs on lawsuits against businesses. "Farm Sanctuary seeks to apply a provision of the anti-cruelty statute that makes it a misdemeanor to deprive an animal confined in an enclosed space of 'an adequate exercise area.' Sows in the 2-foot-by-6-foot crates can take two steps forward or backward at most and can't turn around or comfortably lie down on the concrete floors." You can see photos of the types of stalls in question at: http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/photos_gestation.htm Gene Bauston, president of Farm Sanctuary is quoted: "If you did this to a cat or a dog you would be charged with cruelty. But in the case of farm animals, we as a society have tended to look the other way." We read that "Representatives of Corcpork and Clougherty... contend that the anti-cruelty law doesn't apply to farm animals and say the company's practices conform to industry standards." Indeed The Federal Animal Welfare Act exempts animals used for food and the vast majority of pigs raised for meat are housed on factory farms. But Farm Sanctuary is hoping to apply California anti cruelty statutes. The article unfortunately includes information that while accurate, is misleading. It tells us that "a lawsuit challenging the California dairy industry's 'Happy Cows' advertising campaign as misleading failed." That implies that the judge ruled that the campaign is not misleading. But, in fact, the lawsuit failed under the finding that government bodies, such as the California Milk Board, are exempt from fair advertising laws. California recently passed Proposition 64, which "bans private parties from suing a business unless they were harmed personally and financially by the alleged misconduct." The article tells us that Corcpork will argue in Court today that the measure bars Farm Sanctuary's suit. We learn that "Courts have issued conflicting opinions in recent months about whether Proposition 64 applied retroactively to cases that were pending when it passed." Once again, the American Veterinary Medical Association (a trade group for veterinarians that has close ties to the industrial farming industry) is arguing against the animals, with spokesperson Gail Golab telling us: "You can have good welfare in lots of different types of systems." (Those who were not yet involved in animal protection in late 2003 might want to check out a Los Angeles Times op-ed I wrote with Peter Singer about a case in which 30,000 conscious hens were killed with a woodchipper. A member of the AVMA's animal welfare committee condoned the method as an appropriate way to slaughter spent hens. The piece is on this website. Click here ) You can read today's article, "Lawsuit Targets Farm's Treatment of Sows" on line at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-pork14jun14,1,1153142.story?coll=la-tot-promo It presents a great opportunity for pro-veggie letters to the editor. The Los Angeles Times takes letters at letters@latimes.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.
FOLLOW UP -- PORK FARM WINS SUIT DISMISSAL THANKS TO PROP 64 -- LA TIMES 6/15/05 A disappointing follow-up on yesterday's article about Farm Sanctuary's suit against Corcpork: The Wednesday June 15 Los Angeles Times has an article headed, "Pork Farm Wins Suit Dismissal." (Pg C2) Before the last election, PETA members got calls that played a taped phone message from Ingrid Newkirk urging them to vote against Proposition 64. Today's article about Farm Sanctuary's suit shows us why. We read: "A Los Angeles judge Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by an animal rights group that accused a Central Valley farm of mistreating pregnant pigs, saying a ballot measure passed last year rendered the case invalid. "Farm Sanctuary, which operates a shelter for rescued farm animals in Orland, Calif., sought to force Corcpork Inc. of Corcoran to stop housing its 9,000 pregnant sows in individual metal stalls barely larger than the pigs. The group hoped to apply a provision of the state's anti-cruelty statute, which makes it a misdemeanor to deprive an animal confined in an enclosed space of 'an adequate exercise area." About the Proposition: "In the months since Proposition 64 passed, businesses have attempted to use it to scuttle pending lawsuits targeting corporate behavior. The measure bans private parties from suing a business unless they were harmed personally and financially by the alleged misconduct." Unfortunately the pigs are unable to sue. The environment has similar difficulty so Proposition 64 will block much environmental effort as well. You can read the full article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pork15jun15,1,5728062.story?coll=la-headlines-business Regardless of whether such suits against animal abuse industries succeed, they generate publicity about unconscionable practices. We must take every opportunity to spread the word, and this story presents a great opportunity. Please send a letter to the editor at letters@latimes.com . You might want to use http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/pigs6.htm as a resource. 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. PLUS -- Finally, I will share my own letter that was published in the Sunday, June 19, Los Angeles Times in response to the articles on the lawsuits against Corcpork: Los Angeles Times June 19, 2005 Sunday BUSINESS; Business Desk; Part C; Pg. 5 Not Hard to Recognize Animal Suffering A veterinary spokesman for the National Pork Board says we aren't Doctor Dolittles, implying that we can't know whether pigs are happy living in crates like metal coffins hardly larger than their bodies ("Lawsuit Targets Farm's Treatment of Sows," June 14). Pigs are significantly smarter than dogs. I hope Times readers will imagine their dogs living like that, will take the pork industry's self-serving claim with a mountain of salt and will think about what they support anytime they order a BLT. Karen Dawn Pacific Palisades -------------------------- Since one activist's letters will not be repeatedly published, I thank
all who write regularly and am thrilled to report that animal friendly
letters to the editor are printed after almost every DawnWatch alert. Even
if your letter isn't published, the interest you have shown in the topic
makes it more likely that somebody's will be -- so on behalf of the
animals, thank you!
CHANCES FADE FOR FOIE GRAS BILL -- NEW YORK TIMES 6/15/05 There is an article in the Wednesday, June 15, New York Times, headed "Chances Fade for Foie Gras Bill" (Dining section, page F12.) It is not on the paper's website, so I will paste the whole article below. I will offer my thoughts, and questions about the bill, after the article: ---------------------------------- The New York Times June 15, 2005 Wednesday Section F; Column 4; Dining In, Dining Out/Style Desk; Pg. 12 Chances Fade for Foie Gras Bill By Peter Meehan Animal rights advocates have given foie gras a tough time over the past year or so. Chefs in the San Francisco Bay Area who used and sold it were subjected to vandalism and threatened. Their opponents said its production was cruel because it requires the force-feeding of ducks and geese. The California Legislature passed a law that would eventually bar its production and sale. Two well-known Chicago chefs got into a name-calling spat over whether using it was ethical. The anti-foie-gras tide seemed so strong that Michael Ginor, an owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Ferndale, N.Y., the most prominent producer in the East, threw up his hands and backed a bill in the New York State Legislature that would ban production, but not for 10 years. ''I've got 200 employees to worry about,'' Mr. Ginor said in a telephone interview. ''If I don't know if I'm going to get put out of business at the end of the year, how am I going to know I can afford to put a new roof up to protect the ducks from the rain? At least this way I can make a plan.'' Earlier this year he worked to persuade legislators to revise bills that would have banned foie gras production as soon as this November. Bills now in the Assembly and Senate would impose a ban in 10 years. In another twist, however, the sponsor of the Senate bill, John J. Bonacic, Republican of Mount Hope, says he has decided not to push for its passage after all and has told Mr. Ginor that he should not be so ready to compromise. Senator Bonacic said he originally sponsored the bill with the 10-year delay because Mr. Ginor, a constituent, asked for his support. But since then, he said, he has concluded that Mr. Ginor was mistaken about the inevitability of the ban. And he said the New York Farm Bureau, an agricultural lobbying group, is strongly opposed to the bill and could help prevent its passage. ''I think, quite frankly, he's getting a lot of advice,'' the senator said. ''I want to make sure this is something he wants.'' After the two spoke by phone yesterday, Mr. Ginor said he would reconsider his support of the proposed law. The Senate and Assembly bills would ban the force-feeding of birds ''for the purposes of fatty enlargement of their livers,'' with a fine of $1,000 for each violation. The sale of foie gras would not be barred. The measure is expected to die in Senate committee this year. Other bills, including ones with immediate bans on production, could be introduced next year. ---------------------------------------- HSUS has been asking its members to urge their representatives to back the bill, calling it similar to the foie gras ban passed in California. But the ban on sale in California, rather than only on production, is a considerable dissimilarity. Some animal protection groups fought the California bill because of the seven year phase out period. I supported the bill, despite the waiting period, because legislative wins always involve some compromise and because the bill had the support of Senator Burton, the most powerful member of the California senate, who would be out of the senate the following year. I thought it unlikely that a bill submitted in the near future without his support would survive with better terms than the one with his support. Despite the disappointing phase out period, I was thrilled by the victory achieved: a total ban on the production and sale of foie gras in one of the world's largest economies. What survives of the New York bill is considerably less, and could be seen as simply protecting that state's foie gras industry for the next ten years. I think it is always a mistake to oppose another animal groups legislative efforts -- it undermines our movement's credibility in the legislature. But I think it reasonable to ask if the animal protection groups opposing the current bill have a good point, and if the bill should be allowed to die. Then hopefully it can be resurrected with the New York equivalent of California's Senator Burton behind it, so that a ban (probably with a waiting period being the unfortunate compromise) on both production and sale can be achieved. Animal protection activists must be willing to compromise in the area of legislation since that is generally how legislation works: no compromise, no law. But there comes a point at which the compromise is so great that we must ask ourselves if we are just selling out and declaring a win when there isn't one. Whether or not the bill becomes law, it has had the terrific effect of publicizing the cruelty behind foie gras. The article in today's paper provides a great opportunity for letters that keep the discussion alive on the editorial pages. The more light shone on the horror behind foie gras, the more likely will be a future total ban. The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when
sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be
published. You can learn more about "The Pain Behind Foie Gras"
at: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=97
ARTICLE ON BEN WHITE -- ACTIVIST WITH STOMACH CANCER -- 6/16/05 The Thursday June 16 Seattle Post-Intelligencer includes a beautiful article about 53-year-old activist Ben White, who is battling stomach cancer. It is headed, "Crusader begins fiercest fight yet -- against cancer." It opens: "He scaled tall buildings to hang anti-fur banners in New York, cut open Japanese dolphin-holding nets under cover of night, broke into a rundown zoo in Grenada to free monkeys and -- in his least risky and most publicized act -- led an invasion of cardboard turtles at the WTO protest in Seattle. Ben White, intrepid animal activist, has fought too many battles to keep count. This new one -- the fight for his own life -- caught him by surprise." We learn that White's activism started at age 16 when he infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan in north Virginia and that soon after he began organizing a chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, an anti-war group. His animal activism started later in life after an encounter with a spinner dolphin; it led him to devote himself to being a "voice for the voiceless." You can read the whole article and learn more about him at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/228730_benwhite16.html The article tells us that the treatment for White's stomach cancer, likely to give him a few more years to keep contributing to the world, is expensive and that he has no medical insurance. If you would like to donate, go to http://www.brynbarnard.com/Ben to learn more. And the article opens the door for letters to the editor in which we
follow Ben White's example and act as a "voice for the
voiceless." 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."
CHICAGO TRIBUNE ON PETA SUIT TO BLOCK HAWTHORN ELEPHANT TRANSFER 6/17/05 The latest development in the Hawthorn elephant situation is on the front page of the Friday, June 17, Chicago Tribune. The article is headed, "PETA sues to block transfer of 4 elephants from farm." It opens: "The plan to send four elephants from a controversial farm in McHenry County to a foundation in Oklahoma that is affiliated with a circus has sparked a federal lawsuit to stop the transfer. "Unable to reach an agreement that would send all 12 of Hawthorn Corp.'s remaining elephants to a Tennessee sanctuary, the U.S. Department of Agriculture last month approved the transfer of four of them from the circus-training facility near Richmond to the Endangered Ark Foundation in Hugo, Okla. "That angered People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals because the foundation is run by the same family that manages the Carson & Barnes Circus. PETA calls all circuses "three rings of abuse." "Last week PETA filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington to try to block the transfer. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Monday. "Hawthorn plans to fight PETA's objection, said Derek Shaffer, the company's lawyer." The article refers to an undercover PETA video that "allegedly shows a Carson & Barnes trainer mistreating elephants and instructing others to 'make 'em scream.'" You can watch that video on line at: http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=carson_barnes_long And you can read the full Chicago Tribune story on line at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0506170194jun17,1,3947997.story?coll=chi-news-hed It presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor against the use of captive wild animals for human entertainment. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform I will paste below PETA's alert on the situation. It requests that letters be sent to the USDA opposing the move and provides the address for those letters. Yours and the animals', Karen Dawn Here is the PETA alert: ------- Urgent: Hawthorn Elephants in Danger of Ending Up With Circus PETA has learned that five of the 12 elephants with the Hawthorn Corporation will be sent to the Carson & Barnes Circus “Endangered Ark Foundation.” Instead of finding a permanent reprieve from the abusive circus industry at a sanctuary, these elephants will continue to suffer in a circus, where beatings and extreme confinement are routine. Carson & Barnes has a lengthy history of animal abuse and neglect and has been cited numerous times for failure to provide veterinary care and at least eight times since 1995 for failing to maintain its animal-transport trailers. Carson & Barnes has paid nearly $1,000 to avoid further action by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in two separate alleged violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The circus paid $550 following an investigation of an incident in which a circus trailer carrying two elephants overturned in June 2003, injuring the elephants. Carson & Barnes paid $400 for mishandling elephants in violation of the AWA as a result of video in which Tim Frisco, the circus’s animal care director, was caught on tape viciously attacking and shocking terrified elephants. Frisco instructs other trainers to hurt the elephants until they scream and to sink a sharp, metal bullhook into their flesh and twist it. Frisco also cautions that the beatings must be concealed from the public. In April 2004, Carson & Barnes’ 5-year-old, endangered Asian elephant, Jennie, died after contracting a herpes virus carried by African elephants. Jennie’s death might have been prevented if Carson & Barnes had followed even the most basic guidelines for elephant care. The circus subjected Jennie to the rigors of forceful training, performance, and travel at just 16 months of age, stressing her delicate immune system. Despite the American Zoo and Aquarium Association’s recommendation that Asian and African elephants not be caged together because of disease risks from this deadly virus, Carson & Barnes recklessly commingles the two species. Now, Jennie’s brother Obert is forced to perform tricks on tour. He is less than two years old. It is stunning that the USDA would have approved placement for these elephants with proven elephant beaters when The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee is prepared to take all of the female elephants in September 2005, following completion of a new barn. Letters to the USDA are urgently needed. Please write short, polite letters to the Secretary of Agriculture insisting that the USDA place the elephants at The Elephant Sanctuary and implement its consent decision by revoking Hawthorn’s license to exhibit animals: The Honorable Michael O. Johanns Secretary of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building 12th Street and Jefferson Drive S.W., Rm. 200-A Washington, DC 20250 agsec@usda.gov 202-720-3631 202-720-2166 (fax) Also, please write short, polite letters to your two federal senators
and member of Congress. Let them know that while the USDA is to be
commended for forcing Hawthorn to relinquish its elephants after serious
and chronic violations of the AWA, the agency must act responsibly in
placing these elephants in humane conditions at The Elephant Sanctuary.
Contact information for your elected officials can be found at
www.Congress.org/congressorg/home/, simply by entering your zip code in
the search box under “Write Elected Officials.” ---------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES TIMES FRONT PAGE ON ADMINISTRATION'S TAMPERING WITH GRAZING REPORT 6/18/05 The front page of the Saturday, June 18 Los Angeles Times included a story headed, "Land Study on Grazing Denounced. Two retired specialists say Interior excised their warnings on the effects on wildlife and water." It opens: "The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study. "A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers. "Grazing regulations, which affect 160 million acres of public land in the Western U.S., set the conditions under which ranchers may use that land, and guide government managers in determining how many cattle may graze, where and for how long without harming natural resources. "The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a 'significant adverse impact' on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals." "Eliminated from the final draft was another conclusion that read: 'The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general.' "Also removed was language saying how a number of the rule changes could adversely affect endangered species." Erick Campbell, a former BLM state biologist who was the author of sections of the report pertaining to the effect on wildlife and threatened and endangered species is quoted: "This is a whitewash. They took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees. They rewrote everything. It's a crime." The article tells us the following about public land grazing: "Livestock graze on public land in 11 Western states, including 8 million acres in California. The vast acreage is needed to support a comparatively small number of livestock because in the arid region topsoil is thin and grass is generally sparse. About 2% of the nation's beef is produced from cattle on public lands. The new rules, published Friday by the BLM, a division of the Department of Interior, ensures ranchers expanded access to public land and requires federal land managers to conduct protracted studies before taking action to limit that access. The rules reverse a long-standing agency policy that gave BLM experts the authority to quickly determine whether livestock grazing was inflicting damage. The regulations also eliminate the agency's obligation to seek public input on some grazing decisions. Public comment will be allowed but not required." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,6435603,full.story A superb resource on this issue is the book, "Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West. Pretty much the whole wonderful book is published and available free on the web at http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm The Los Angeles Times article presents a great opportunity for letters on the environmental impact of meat-laden diets, whether or not animals are allowed to graze (factory farming also takes a terrible toll on the environment) and on the horrendous animal suffering if they are not. You may wish to write about the many benefits of plant-based diets. The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.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. I send thanks to Suzanne Haws for making sure we saw the Times story.
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE FRONT PAGE ON ELEPHANT CAPTIVITY 6/19/05 The Sunday, June 19, San Diego Union Tribune (Home of what is arguably America's most famous zoo) has a lengthy front page story headed, "Where do elephants belong? Zoo industry, animal rights groups differ over what constitutes humane treatment for captive pachyderms." It opens: "They are a natural spectacle: elephants, with their flapping ears and loose skin like baggy trousers. Many people grew up watching these graceful giants at zoos. "But recent controversies in several cities across the country – including the deaths of three elephants that once lived at the San Diego Zoo – spotlight an issue that animal rights advocates are rallying around: Is it humane to keep the largest land mammal on an acre or less, as many zoos do? That question is fast becoming the center of a growing national debate." We learn that "seven U.S. zoos have given up their elephants in as many years." There is a great quote from Ron Kagan, the director of the Detroit Zoo, which recently released its elephants to sanctuary: "The human desire to collect creatures and be amused by them has not served animals well. Zoo professionals are now struggling to find an ethical foundation. Are we animal advocates or just entertainers?" Recent events that centered in San Diego are discussed: The Zoological Society of San Diego, which operates the San Diego Zoo and the Wild Animal Park near Escondido, stands center stage in the elephant debate. The society infuriated animal rights groups when it imported seven wild African elephants from Swaziland in 2003. Zoo officials said they were rescuing the young elephants, which were scheduled to be killed because of overpopulation at an animal park there. To make room for the newcomers, the zoo sent three older elephants – Peaches, Tatima and Wankie – to Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo. "Tatima died in October from a long-standing infection, said zoo officials, and Peaches died in January of old age. Wankie collapsed after being transferred to a Utah zoo from Chicago and was euthanized in May. Zoo officials don't regret the move to Chicago, saying there's no evidence that it hurt the elephants. Animal rights advocates have protested, saying the move and the cold weather worsened their conditions." And we learn, "The next debates may be in El Paso, Texas, and Los Angeles." The article describes the elephant enclosures at various zoos considered amongst the world's best, where the elephants have one or two acres, and comments, "That's not enough space for animals that roam 20 to 50 miles a day in the wild, animal rights groups say." There is a strong quote from Joyce Poole, an animal behaviorist who studied elephants for 30 years in Africa: "Zoos should not be lending elephants here and there, separating mothers from calves, splitting families and friends. To keep a group together means space. They need space outside. They need space to be elephants." You can read the whole article (it is long and detailed) on line at: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050619-9999-lz1n19elephan.html We can keep the issue alive with letters to the editor about the need to get elephants out of zoos, and against the use of captive wild animals for human entertainment. www.SaveWildElephants.com is a good resource. The San Diego Union Tribune takes letters at letters@uniontrib.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.
WASHINGTON POST ON WHALE MEAT PROMOTION IN JAPAN 6/19/05 There is a disturbing article in the Sunday, June 19, Washington Post (Page A19, but front page in some editions) headed, "In Japan, Cultivating A Taste For Whale; Government Effort Targets Children." It opens: "An animated group of schoolchildren from this suburban town in northern Japan poured into their gymnasium Thursday afternoon and listened raptly to a whale expert give a talk on the gentle giants of the sea. They passed around whale teeth and were told about the growing abundance of the world's largest mammals before diving into the lecture's main course -- heaping plates of deep-fried whale chunks. "As part of a program by the Japanese government and the fishing industry to rebuild Japan's endangered taste for whale, the students -- some with less enthusiasm than others -- dug into the crispy whale nuggets dished out into little plastic lunchboxes. After the feast, the children headed home with official 'Whale Books' loaded with helpful tips including how to defrost whale meat (over two days) as well as recipes for whale burgers and whale soup." There is a quote from a 7-year old: "I guess I do feel sorry for the whales. But I ate it anyway because it looked so good. And when I ate it, I liked it. Whale is really delicious." We read, " Japan is lobbying hard to overthrow a nearly two-decade-old moratorium on commercial whaling at the 57th International Whaling Commission meeting in South Korea next week. Officials are also locked in a struggle back home to rekindle the nation's ebbing tradition of eating whale....Though commercial whaling has been banned since the 1980s to protect whales from being hunted to extinction, Japan still brings in the world's largest catch from annual harvests of legal 'scientific whaling.' Research shows that whale meat has become readily available to Japanese consumers at specialty restaurants and gourmet grocery stores nationwide....Japan is set to unveil a plan next week to almost double 'scientific whaling' of Antarctic minke whales, from 440 to more than 850, and fresh kills of humpbacks and fin whales for the first time in decades, according to diplomats familiar with the proposal. Japan, leading a pro-whaling bloc in the International Whaling Commission, is seeking to wrest control of the 62-nation body from anti-whaling nations, led by Australia and New Zealand. Observers say pro-whaling nations are likely to fall short of the three-quarters majority needed to reinstate commercial whaling. But they are within one or two votes of securing a simple majority as early as Monday, according to diplomatic sources." However we read, "Some opinion polls show that younger generations of Japanese are more interested in conservation than culinary delights. The price for whale meat in Japan has decreased in recent years -- falling to $12 a pound in 2004 compared with $15 a pound in 1999. Demand for whale meat has been anemic. Last year, the industry put 20 percent of its 4,000-ton haul into frozen surplus." That is why "the government and pro-whaling groups have pumped cash into the promotion of eating whale meat." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR2005061800890.html It creates a good opportunity for letters to the editor on various aspects of animal protection and conservation. Since pigs, eaten by the millions in the USA, are no less sentient than whales, some animal advocates may want to turn towards a discussion of factory farming. A good resource on the issue is www.FactoryFarming.com The Washington Post takes letters at letters@washpost.com
and advises, "Please do not send attachments.... Letters must be
exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home
address and home and business telephone numbers."
WASHINGTON POST HEALTH COLUMN RECOMMENDS EATING LESS MEAT 6/21/05 There is a welcome article on the front page of the Health section of the Tuesday, June 21, Washington Post, headed "To Cut Fat, Eat Less Meat." It opens: "To reach a healthier weight this summer, consider throwing some portobello mushrooms, veggie burgers and fish on the grill in place of steak, hot dogs and chicken. "A new study of some 55,000 healthy, middle-aged Swedish women finds that those who ate little or no meat weighed significantly less than their more carnivorous counterparts. The findings are some of the first to show a direct link between a plant-based diet and a lower body mass index, or BMI. The article is a little misleading, with lines such as, "All three vegetarian groups reported eating dairy products, even the vegans, who had about two servings daily." Vegans, by definition, don't eat dairy products. Even those who cheat, but still call themselves vegan, would not be consuming two servings daily! But the overall message of the article, displayed in the following line, is great news for the animals: "Numerous studies have demonstrated health benefits of eating a diet rich in plant-based foods, from fostering healthier blood pressure levels and reduced blood cholesterol to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer." You can read the full article on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062001056_pf.html Though the article discusses only human health, it creates a terrific opportunity for letters about the other issues around a meat-based diet -- such as the horrendous cruelty of factory farming. A good resource is www.FactoryFarming.com Also, since the article recommends the consumption of dairy products, some animal advocates may wish to write about the cruelty of the dairy industry and the health problems related to the consumption of dairy products. PETA's site http://www.milksucks.com/index2.html is fun and informative. 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."
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR ON JAPANESE WHALING -- 6-23-05 The Thursday, June 23, Christian Science Monitor has an update on Japanese whaling. The article is headed "Japan to double whale catch." (Page 06) It opens: "Tokyo says it's for science, but conservationists disagree. Japan announced this week at the International Whaling Commission in the city of Ulsan, South Korea, that it will more than double its annual whale catch for scientific purposes in what critics say may turn the tide against decades of protecting the sea mammals. "Activists have fiercely condemned the move, and antiwhaling Australia passed a nonbinding resolution Wednesday calling on Japan to halt the program, which is allowed under IWC rules. "While votes on various measures at the week-long plenary have narrowly favored the antiwhaling camp, the IWC may be on the verge of moving away from being a conservation-minded organization back to being the whaling regulation body it started out as in 1946. Most resolutions have only been passed by a margin of three or four votes. "More nations from Asia, Northern Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean are now saying that the 66-member group ought to be less concerned with protecting whales than with promoting more hands-on environmental management as some whale species have recovered." "Japan plans to double its annual catch of minkes to 935 from 440 and add up to 50 larger fin and humpback whales to the list within a few years under its new scientific research program.... While the IWC voted Tuesday to keep the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling in place, the expansion of Japan's whale catch is a bitter blow to antiwhaling groups who argue the practice is barbarous. Leah Garces, a campaign director for the London-based World Society for the Protection of Animals is quoted: "There is no humane way to kill a whale at sea and all commercial and scientific whaling should cease on grounds of cruelty alone,." But we read that "countries like Japan and Norway see the opposition to whaling as stemming from a combination of poor environmental management skills and cultural intolerance." There is some encouraging news: "Whalers in resource-poor nations lost a lucrative income when the moratorium took effect and while some hope to return to hunting the giant sea mammals, animal rights groups have recently been encouraged to see more fishermen in Asia and the Caribbean trade in their harpoons for dolphin and whale watching tour boats." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0623/p06s02-woap.html It presents a good opportunity for letters on various aspects of animal protection -- either in support of the whales or questioning some of those cultural practices Westerners find acceptable. The Christian Science Monitor takes letters at: http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4
MIAMI HERALD FRONT PAGE ON DOLPHIN SWIM PROGRAMS 6/23/05 There is an unfortunate article on swim-with-dolphin programs on the front page of the Thursday June 23 Miami Herald, headed "Close-ups with dolphins boost park's cash flow. Want to be a dolphin trainer for a day? That will be $650, please. Dolphin swims have become a lucrative industry for marine parks." It opens: "Dolphins belong to the Delphindaefamily, but put them in a pool with tourists and they resemble a far more coveted species: the cash cow. Theater of the Sea in Islamorada charges $150 for a 30-minute dolphin swim. Petting one costs $15 at the Dolphin Research Center in Grassy Key; volunteering there as a trainer costs $650. The Miami Seaquarium's dolphin swims generate more than $1 million a year -- as much as comes in from the park's gift shops and souvenir stands. So it's no surprise face-to-fin encounters have emerged as a significant growth industry. In a decade, the United States went from having four places to swim with the dolphins to more than two dozen. At least seven swim facilities have opened in the Caribbean since 2000, according to Humane Society estimates, with plans for a dozen or more in the works." Andrew Hertz, the Seaquarium's general manager, says that before the swims the park had an "underutilized resource" in its dolphins. The article describes how the dolphin swims work, tells us that the dolphins are not forced to swim with people (presumably they would be welcome to spend their days, instead, doing nothing alone in a tank) and, sadly, ends with this promotional line from a patron, ''So far, it was the most expensive thing we've done. But it was worth it.'' The article tells us "the United States has not allowed dolphin captures for more than a decade" (so any dolphins over ten were likely wrenched from their families and freedom into lives as slaves to human entertainment) but that "other countries sanction open-water catches" and that "Cuba is considered the Caribbean's leading wild-dolphin provider." Unfortunately it does not spell out what animal advocates know -- that to participate in a dolphin-swim program while on vacation outside of the US is to directly support the horror of dolphin capture. (More on that below.) The animal rights point of view is given a line or two in this lengthy article. We read: '''Dolphins don't like swimming with people,' said Russ Rector, a former dolphin trainer turned activist who helps run the parody site www.miamiseaprison.com " It is a site well worth checking out. Also worth checking out is Ric O'Barry's site (Ric is a former Flipper trainer) http://www.dolphinproject.org/ Here is a description of dolphin capture from that website: "One Voice succeeded in videotaping the gruesome scene as dolphin trainers, working side by side with the Taiji fishermen, drove a pod of more than 100 bottlenose dolphins into the killing lagoon to select the ones that fit the desired criteria for public display. The trainers killed at least four dolphins in the selection process. ... Meanwhile, the dolphin trainers let the fishermen kill all the dolphins they didn't want. There were several very small babies in the pod. They still depended on their mothers‚ milk for survival and were too young to train. So the fishermen killed them, and the dolphin trainers did absolutely nothing to help them. The dolphins cried as the fishermen slashed them with hooks and knives and the lagoon filled with their blood..." You can read the Miami Herald's front page fluff piece on the swim-with-dolphin industry at: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/11961753.htm And you can send a letter to the editor by going to: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/contact_us/feedback_np1/ Choose "letter to the editor" from the pull-down menu.
NEWSWEEK -- "SHELTERS EUTHANIZE MORE ANIMALS THAN THEY SAVE" 6/27/03 edition The June 27 edition of Newsweek has a nice piece by Ed Boks, the new director of the Animal Care and Control for New York City, headed "The Dirty Little Secret In Your Community. All too often, shelters euthanize more animals than they save. In New York City, we're changing that." He writes about his background, and the success he has had since his arrival New York, raising adoption rates and causing kill rates to fall significantly, and his attempt to make New York into a no-kill city. It is an encouraging article. You can read it on line at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8270313/site/newsweek/ It provides a great opportunity for letters about the importance of spay-neuter and the joys of adoption. Newsweek takes letters at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8270313/site/newsweek/
NEW YORK TIMES AND INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE OP-ED AND NEW YORK MAGAZINE FEATURE ON FOIE GRAS 6-27-6-30 6/26/-6/ The Sunday, June 26, New York Times has an op-ed on the foie gras debate (Section 4, page 11) headed "Face to Face With the Foie Gras Problem." It appeared in the International Herald Tribune on June 30, headed "The ethical calculus of foie gras." And the current edition of New York Magazine (June 27) has a lengthy and balanced feature article headed, "Does a Duck Have a Soul? How foie gras became the new fur." The Times op-ed spells out why, after the groundbreaking law passed in California that will ban all production and sale of foie gras in the world's fifth largest economy as of 2012, animal advocates err when accepting amendments to bills in other states when the amendments cut out the ban on sale. Here is how it opens: "The web of life can be a trap for the conscience. Try twisting your mind around the human relationship with animals and it may quickly snarl in crisscrossing strands of compassion and guilt. Contortions may ensue. "Consider, for example, the strange role reversals behind an effort in Albany to outlaw the force-feeding of waterfowl to engorge their livers into foie gras, the fatty restaurant delicacy. One Senate sponsor, John Bonacic, is an upstate Republican who says he has no special sympathy for ducks or geese, despite what his bill says. He says he wants only to help a Sullivan County constituent - Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the nation's leading producer of fresh foie gras, which has not only lobbied for the bill, but also helped to write it. "Why? Michael Ginor, an owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, says he feels an anti-foie-gras mood building and is willing to be put out of business in New York if he can land on his feet somewhere else. The Bonacic bill, unlike others lurking in the legislative wings, does not take effect until 2016, giving Mr. Ginor ample time to make other plans - moving to Canada, maybe, or an Indian reservation - without worrying about losing his market dominance or facing prosecution for cruelty. "Animal welfare advocates have thus found themselves opposing a foie-gras ban, which in this case they say cynically gives a duck torturer a decade of indulgence." Surprisingly, there are animal groups still pushing the bill, even though the ban on production in one state that will still be able to import foie gras from other states, will do nothing to help the animals, and fighting for it therefore wastes time, resources, and money that people have donated hoping to help animals. The article continues: "That bill and others like it are going nowhere this session, but they'll be back. The battle against foie gras is being fought on many fronts - California, the country's only other producer, enacted a law to eventually ban its production and sale, as have other states and countries." In its current state, the demise of the New York foie gras bill should be welcome news. And animal advocates should not blithely support future bills that do not ban sale, when California and other countries have made it clear that bans on sale, though not easily won, are possible. The op-ed goes on to suggest that foie gras production really isn't so bad for the animals. One has to disagree after seeing footage of ducks on foie gras farms too weak to defend themselves being eaten alive by rats. However the following point is fair: "The human appetite for sentient protein - food that flinches - is an ethical puzzle that many of us solve by deciding not to think about it. But those who lament the exploitation of God's creatures for human consumption and fun should be careful not to spend all their pity in one place. There is, after all, a vast universe of discomfort and death in American agribusiness, which processes 9 billion chickens and 98 million pigs a year, often in close confinement, ending in slaughter on a monumental scale. Against this backdrop - not to mention the misery of the veal pen, the mass agony of the trawler net, the sadness of the pet shop and circus - the sum of animal unhappiness in Hudson Valley's tidily run operation, which kills 250,000 ducks a year, seems trivial." It certainly isn't trivial to the ducks, and since the world is not going vegan tomorrow we help where we can. And, of course, not all of us solve the puzzle by deciding not to think about it. Some of us make different food choices. The op-ed cries out for letters to the editor in support of plant-based diets! It ends with the reminder that Hudson Valley Foie Gras provides a living for 175 people, tacitly suggesting that we should condone any business, no matter how unethical and offensive to our sensibilities, if it provides jobs. Animal advocates will disagree with much of the op-ed but it is a thoughtful piece, worth reading, and certainly worth responding to. You'll find it on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/opinion/26sun2.html The New York Times takes letters at: letters@nytimes.com The International Herald Tribune takes letters at: letters@iht.com The New York Magazine article looks at the foie gras debate in New York, focusing on protests outside Union Square cafe. It includes description of foie gras production: "The controversy has arisen not over the mere slaughter of poultry but over the way foie gras is, and by definition must be, created. (Literally, the term means 'fattened liver.') Foie gras is that most Catholic of delicacies: paradise attained through suffering. The process generally involves a twelve-week stage in which ducks are allowed to roam free in a yard—then a four-week period of force-feeding, known as gavage. Two or three times a day, the birds have a tube jammed straight into their esophagi, at which point a few pounds of cornmeal are injected. Eventually, their livers expand to many times their normal size, at which point the birds are dispatched, and their innards served up to aficionados. It’s this method that makes foie gras so singularly rich and silky: By the time the ducks reach the end of the line, their livers consist of no less than 80 percent fat." You can read that article on line at: http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/food/features/12071/index.html It provides an opening for letters on foie gras, or any aspect of human society's treatment of members of other species. New York Magazine takes letters at: NYLetters@newyorkmag.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.
AUSTRALIAN STATE SET TO BAN GLUE TRAPS FOR NICE -- 6/27/05 Something groundbreaking from the state of Victoria in Australia today: The following article appears in the Monday June 27 edition of Melbourne's Herald Sun (Pg 13) and is on line at: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15740918%255E2862,00.html --------------------- Heading: "Mice escape cruel ending" By Tanya Giles People who use glue traps to kill mice and rats will be hit with fines of up to $1000 under a crackdown on animal cruelty. The State Government is set to be the first state to outlaw the traps because of the injury, suffering and distress they cause rodents and other small animals. Glue traps are available from supermarkets and hardware stores, and catch small animals when their feet become stuck as they walk or run across the sticky boards. Professional trappers kill more than 250,000 rodents in Australia each year using glue traps. A regulatory impact statement released this week has said the animals not only suffer extreme stress when stuck, but also prolonged deaths from dehydration, exposure, starvation, suffocation or attack by predators. Animals also die from injuries or blood loss when they try to chew through their own limbs in an attempt to escape. Agriculture Minister Bob Cameron has invited public comment on the proposed regulations until August 26. The RSPCA and Animals Australia say they would support the bans. The Australian Environmental Pest Managers Association said they opposed a ban because the benefits of the traps to society in rodent control outweighed animal welfare issues. ---------------------------- The notice, including addresses for public comment, is on line at: Victorians, please pass this onto all the other animal friendly Victorians you know and urge them to write! I share this article internationally as inspiration for the rest of us. It is hard to imagine such a law protecting mice being passed in the US -- but why not? Aussies and others can send the Herald Sun letters to the editor in support of the effort at: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/feedback/dhs-testletters.html
WASHINGTON POST ON DOLPHINS USING SPONGES AS TOOLS 6/27/05 A story that broke a few weeks ago appears in the Monday, June 27, Washington Post (Pg A07) headed, "Sponging' Dolphins May Be Sharing Culture." The Post article goes beyond sharing the news that a group of dolphins appear to be using sponges as tools, into a discussion of the similarities between our species and others. The article opens: "When marine biologists first spotted bottlenose dolphins cavorting off the coast of Australia wearing sea sponges on their snouts, they didn't know what to make of the odd behavior. Now, an international team of researchers has produced evidence that the animals' antics represent a form of culture, which would add the dolphins to an elite group of species that pass traditions down through generations without being compelled by their genes." The lead researcher, Michael Krutzen explains: "They wear them like a glove. When they go down to the sea floor to probe for prey, there are lots of noxious animals down there. By using the sponge, it protects them." This quote from him is pertinent: "The boundaries between humans and animals are becoming less and less clear. Thirty years ago, people thought humans and animals were very different from each other. No one thought animals used tools. No one thought they had any kind of culture. Those boundaries have been getting fuzzier and fuzzier. Now here's another example." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/26/AR2005062600752.html?referrer=email It provides a perfect opportunity for letters to the editor on any aspect of our treatment of members of others species. The Washington Post advises, "You can e-mail your Letters to the
Editor to letters@washpost.com .
Please do not send attachments; they will not be read....Letters must be
exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home
address and home and business telephone numbers."
CHICAGO TRIBUNE FRONT PAGE ON NATIONAL ZOO AND LINCOLN PARK TROUBLES -- 6/27/05 As Chicago deals with a spate of animal deaths at it Lincoln Park Zoo, the similar problems at DC's National Zoo are on the front page of the Monday, July 27, Chicago Tribune. An article headed, "National Zoo endured scrutiny now befalling Lincoln Park facility" opens with: "The red pandas died after eating rat poison buried in their enclosure. The zebras died of hypothermia and malnutrition; the lion passed away after undergoing anesthesia for an X-ray. The bald eagle? Attacked by another zoo animal, it died on Independence Day 2003. "Two years later, the National Zoo is still recovering from the criticism it received in the wake of the deaths, while its counterpart in Chicago, Lincoln Park Zoo, has begun facing similar scrutiny. "In the coming weeks, two monitoring organizations are expected to complete their reviews of the venerable Lincoln Park facility, reports prompted by the zoo's own animal deaths. "Since October, nine high-profile animals--three elephants, three langur monkeys, two gorillas and a camel--have died at the zoo. "While the circumstances of the deaths differ, similarities between the two zoos are striking. Both are set in the middle of bustling cities and are free to the public. Both are among the oldest zoos in the country. And both have found themselves the target of animal rights groups and the media, asked to explain themselves and their animal care." "At Lincoln Park, both the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have completed on-site visits and are writing up their findings, reports that are expected to shed light on whether the zoo's care for the animals played any role in their deaths. "In Washington, the National Academy of Sciences released the results of its $450,000 review in January, a report that found the zoo acted properly in most of the deaths. "Still, two years after the National Zoo first drew headlines for the panda deaths, scars from the experience remain." We learn that the zoo lost volunteers and that fundraising and membership dropped off significantly. The article reminds us of the awesome power of the media and why we must do everything we can to encourage coverage of animal issues: "Prompted largely by a series of articles in the Washington Post, Congress ordered the National Academy of Sciences study in 2003. The comprehensive review looked at 48 animal deaths from 1998 to 2003, about half of which had been reported in the media. Released in January, the report praised the zoo for making changes in recent years but criticized the facility for its lack of planning, poor communication, poor record keeping and insufficient training." The zoo was found to have acted incorrectly in "a handful" of the deaths, including the red pandas and the zebras. We read, perhaps most importantly, that Michael Roberts, who chaired the study, said the National Zoo is "probably just a snapshot of what is going on at other zoos as well." That suggests that the whole zoo system needs a serious shake-up. You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0506270202jun27,1,409045.story?coll=chi-news-hed The front page story presents a great opportunity for letters against holding wild animals captive for human entertainment. The Chicago Tribune takes letters at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform A good resource on the issue is PETA's fact sheet "Zoos: Pitiful
Prisons" at http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=67
PETA ASKS AQUARIUM TO STOP SERVING FISH -- BBC'S THE WORLD, NY TIMES AND LA TIMES 6/28/-6-29 One of PETA's latest campaigns, its request to the Long Beach aquarium to take fish off the menu in its restaurant, is getting superb coverage. A note on the campaign: It is unlikely that PETA expects the aquarium to immediately stop serving fish lunches in response to the request. But that sort of unusual request gets coverage, and gives PETA the opportunity to use the media to raise awareness. For some reason many people who care about the treatment of other animals draw the line at fish -- some people even call themselves vegetarian though they eat fish! Perhaps it is because fish seem so foreign to us, and are scaly rather than cuddly. Or perhaps it is because most of us were raised on scientific misinformation that told us that fish aren't sentient, or that they have memories of just a few seconds. It is only in the last few years that scientific tests have demonstrated that fish feel pain, and are as intelligent as many land animals with which we commonly interact. (See www.fishinghurts.com for more on those studies). The aquarium campaign is helping PETA publicize those studies and also to draw attention to our disconnect -- that we admire with wonder and even care about animals of other species, then cut off all feeling for them when they appear on our plates. The campaign got coverage in the Tuesday, June 28, Los Angeles Times, and on three local Los Angeles news broadcasts the same evening, and in the Wednesday, June 29 New York Times. But perhaps most exciting is that it got terrific coverage on BBC's "The World" which broadcasts all over the world, including in every US market. The World did a five minute piece on the issue, interviewing Karin Robertson who heads up PETA's Fish Empathy Project. Karin got to mention the studies that demonstrate fish intelligence and sentience, and to talk about the suffering of fish as a result of trawling and also fish farms, where fish are crammed so tight they can hardly move and many are eaten alive by parasites. One of the highlights of the report was the anchor's point to the aquarium's president: "But imagine some child going around your aquarium and sort of admiring Nemo and his friends in a tank somewhere and then popping out for lunch with Mum and Dad and finding that actually he is eating Nemo for lunch." You can listen to the report on line. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ram/0700.ram The PETA aquarium segment starts at 19:04. After the report 'The World' shared two letters it had received on the issue, both from America, panning the campaign. It would be wonderful if The World received plenty more letters in support. And the show deserves some thank-yous for its balanced coverage of the issue. Please send comments by going to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/worldtoday/institutional/contactus.shtml Here is the Wednesday, June 29 New York Times short piece on the issue (Pg A18): "PETA Asks Aquarium To Stop Serving Fish "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has called on the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach to stop serving fish to visitors. PETA likened the practice to grilling 'poodle burgers at a dog show.' Karin Robertson, manager of the Fish Empathy Project for the organization, wrote to the aquarium, 'It's easy to think of fish as swimming vegetables, but of all the places in the country where fish should get a fair shake, it's an aquarium.' The president of the aquarium, Jerry Schubel, said in a statement that it served only what it called sustainable and environmentally friendly fish. And the Los Angeles Times article, which I sent yesterday to the Angelenos on my list, is on line at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-fish28jun28,1,6487055.story?coll=la-news-state The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.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.
PETA'S RESPONSE TO EUTHANIZATION ISSUE PUBLISHED IN SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 6/30/05 The Thursday, June 30, San Francisco Chronicle has published a response from PETA to criticism of its euthanization of homeless animals. Many of us have read about the arrests of two PETA employees who dumped the bodies of animals they had taken from shelters in North Carolina and then killed. (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87943&ran=155298&tref=po ) It is no secret that PETA takes in animals that shelters have been unable to place and euthanizes many of them. PETA is against breeding animals since we already have too many without homes. But the group is not against euthanizing animals for whom it cannot find homes, rather than warehousing animals. The groups feels that warehousing them provides a poor quality of life and costs a lot of money better spent on sterilizations that will stem the overpopulation crisis. Many of my subscribers have asked me to comment on the issue. The purpose of DawnWatch is to encourage positive interaction between the animal protection world and the media, and good coverage of animal issues. Therefore my number one 'comment' is a request that people use any stories on this issue as excuses for letters to the editor on the importance on spay-neuter and the joys of adoption. My own feelings on the issue itself are mixed. Certainly, criticism of PETA's practices coming from anybody who has recently bought an animal from a pet store or even a "responsible breeder" and has thereby directly contributed to the companion animal overpopulation crisis, seems odd. However Best Friends, the wonderful no-kill sanctuary in Utah, also released a statement condemning PETA. Best Friends suggests that if PETA, which does excellent work in some fields, has no positive contribution to make in the area of homeless animals, it should stay out of that arena. My friends at PETA tell me that since there are still far too many animals for available homes, some must be killed, and it is better they die gentle deaths in caring arms than horrifying mass deaths in gas chambers; so to refuse to do the dirty work would be to do the wrong thing by those animals. That is true -- unless Best Friends plans to take every animal out of the North Carolina shelters, which is unlikely. Yet no organization can do absolutely everything -- all of us abandon some animals to their fate. So I can't help wondering if perhaps PETA should indeed entirely abandon those animals destined for death who it cannot save. I wonder if the better death PETA gives to some animals is worth the cost in public opinion and to the morale of those working towards a no-kill world. In writing that, I do not mean to condemn PETA's euthanization practices -- How can I unless I am willing and able to find homes for all of those animals? I know PETA's choice has come from a good place, and to suggest PETA abandons that work for the sake of public opinion is almost cynical. But public opinion matters, so I float that idea as one I think worth consideration. Meanwhile, below I share PETA's response to the situation, as published in the San Francisco Chronicle (Pg B9). I think its strong arguments for spending money on sterilizations rather than on more shelters, and for dealing with the world as it is now while working towards the one we hope to have, will soften the opinions of those who have been distressed to find PETA in the midst of this issue. The piece opens the door for letters to the editor regarding spay-neuter and adoption. The San Francisco Chronicle takes letters 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." The op-ed mentions that San Francisco kills 1,436 dogs and cats every year. I live in a city that kills about 60,000, where such letters are needed even more than in San Francisco. If your city has a high-kill rate, and your local paper has covered the PETA euthanization issue, I ask again that you please use the story as a jump-off point for a letter to your local editor on the importance of spay-neuter and the joys of adoption. If you have any difficulty finding the email address for a letter to your editor, I am happy to help. And I am always happy to edit letters. Yours and the animals', Karen Dawn Here's the PETA op-ed: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/30/EDGC9DGTNV1.DTL The dilemma of the unwanted Daphna Nachminovitch Thursday, June 30, 2005 The ugly issue of euthanizing dogs and cats -- and the struggle by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals with it -- is in the spotlight. Painful as this is, it's useful to talk about it. PETA concentrates on exposing the cruelties of the food, clothing, experimentation and entertainment industries on animals. But we couldn't turn our back when we discovered that in North Carolina, pounds in some rural counties were pitiful shacks where dogs drowned during floods and workers killed animals with a .22 rifle or gassed them in a leaky, rusty, windowless metal box. There were no adoptions, giving North Carolina the second highest kill rate in the nation. While pushing for reforms and even building a cat shelter from the ground up, we reluctantly assumed the role of "shelter of last resort" in northeastern North Carolina, giving a painless, peaceful death in loving arms to sick, injured and aggressive animals who were slated to be killed inhumanely. Some we managed to place (see the condition of euthanized animals and some of the happy endings on www.helpinganimals.com .) But the most important work we do in North Carolina is promoting and performing sterilization, at no cost, for the dogs and cats that would otherwise be producing litter after unwanted litter. This is what needs to be discussed -- in North Carolina, in California and everywhere. Shelters that accept every dog and cat brought to them don't euthanize animals because we're too cheap to spend money on building more shelters. Building more shelters takes away the resources needed to stem the tide of unwanteds. We're not talking about a few thousand dogs and cats one can scramble to find homes for; we're talking about 3 million to 4 million animals who must be killed every year in the United States because prospective guardians choose to go to pet shops and breeders and still don't sterilize their dogs and cats. The no-kill shelters, including the San Francisco SPCA, tout the fact that they don't kill animals, but they have awarded themselves the luxury of turning away thousands of animals they deem unadoptable. Where do these "undesirables" go? To those shelters that, like PETA, will do the heartbreaking job of euthanasia. In San Francisco, that place is the Department of Animal Care and Control. In other words, DACC is left to do the area's dirty work. In fiscal year 2003-2004, DACC euthanized 1,436 dogs and cats. Critics may condemn PETA for supporting euthanasia, but we are not ashamed of providing a merciful exit from an uncaring world to broken beings. We know that we are also working at the roots of a problem, persuading people that buying puppies and kittens from pet stores and breeders means that other animals, literally dying for a home in a shelter, pay for with their lives. Most important, every time we spay or neuter an animal -- and we sterilized more than 7,600 dogs and cats in southern Virginia and North Carolina last year alone -- we prevent the births of four times its number right off the bat. Three animal generations down the line, that means we prevented the births of nearly half a million animals, which, given the "throwaway rate," means countless thousands were never born only to be euthanized. We all want to save animals. The way to do that is to prevent the births of more dogs and cats. Leaving euthanasia to someone else solves nothing. Daphna Nachminovitch is director of the Domestic Animals Issues and
Abuse Department for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ( www.peta.org
).
DR PHIL SAYS VEGAN KID IS ONE OF THE BEST FED IN THE COUNTRY -- 6/30/05 On Thursday, June 30, Dr Phil (one of the most popular shows on television) dealt with "Pushy Parents." One of three couples examined, David and Deandra, want their kid to be a "superkid." Their parenting style is unusual in many ways, some of it good, some of it questionable -- and indeed Dr Phil questioned some of it. The great news is that he did not question their choice to feed their child a vegan diet. He said: "I have nutritionists that I work with and they said that this is probably one of the best fed kids in the country. Eating the vegetables and the fruits and all of these things." Andrea Mowrer, of Animals Asia, tells me Dr Phil actually made numerous respectful comments about the vegan diet. (I thank her and also Kaz Sephton of the San Antonio Vegetarian Society, for making sure we knew about the show.) If you are interested in looking at the extensive summary of the show you can do so on line at: http://www.drphil.com/show/show.jhtml?contentId=3092_pushyparents.xml And there are message boards to which you can post. Most importantly, let's make sure Dr Phil gets loads of possible feedback for his progressive comments on the child's diet. We can balance out the flak he is likely to get from the cows milk industry and "Consumer Freedom" (the lobby front group for the fast-food industry). Please write. Dr Phil takes comments at: http://www.drphil.com/email/email_phil_show.jhtml
|
