Monthly Archives: March 2003

New Jersey Takes Preliminary Steps Toward Bear Hunt

Posted on by
Reply

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council this month approved a six-day bear hunt season for December 2003 to manage the bear population in the state.

What would be New Jersey’s first bear hunt since 1970 was approved in a 10-1 vote by the council> Now the proposed hunt will be the subject of public hearings before a final decision is made in September.

Officials in New Jersey are obviously worried about the killing last year of a 5-month old infant by a black bear in New York. Although there has never been a similar killing in New Jersey, complaints about black bears increased to 1,412 in 2002, up from only 1,096 in 2001. In addition, The New York Times reports that in the last two years 59 bears have been killed by animal control officers because they posed an immediate threat to people or property.

New Jersey Fish and Game Council member Jane Morton Galetto explained that she voted for the hunt because,

It’s just a matter of time before a child or an adult is killed here, and people start to say they want to see every bear wiped off the face of New Jersey.

In 2000 a similar hunt was authorized to kill 175 bears, but was withdrawn after lobbying from cities and animal rights organizations. Instead, the state spent $1 million educating people on how to avoid bears. Those groups also plan to lobby hard to prevent the December bear hunt from taking place.

The Daily Record News (NJ) quoted Angie Metler of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance as noting that New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey lobbied against the 2000 hunt adding, “we intend to hold McGreevey to his promise to protect the bears.”

The Humane Society of the United States’ Barbara Dyer told The New York Times,

We see this as really a call for a trophy hunt. We stopped the hunt before, and we pledge to stop it again.

New Jersey environmental commissioner Bradley M. Campbell, who would likely have authority over any bear hunt, said that additional study might be needed on exactly how many bears there are in New Jersey before he would be prepared to go ahead with a hunt.

Sources:

State council authorizes black bear hunt. Rob Jennings, Daily Record (New Jersey), March 8, 2003.

Bear hunt is proposed in New Jersey. Robert Hanley, The New York Time, March 8, 2003.

UPC Planning Its 13th Annual Spring Vigil for Chickens

Posted on by
Reply

United Poultry Concerns recently issued a press release announcing its 13th Annual Spring Vigil for Chickens urging activists to protest between April 16 and April 28 for the chickens — and for a low, low payment of just $15, UPC will supply activists with “3 color posters and 100 Chickens Brochures.”

According to the press release,

ONce chickens and eggs were symbols of Life and Spring. Today chickens have become symbols of suffering and death. In the U.S. each year, more than 8 billion baby “broiler” chickens, both males and females, are raised in filth and slaughtered for food. Worldwide more than 40 billion chickens are slaughtered every year. Chickens in the U.S. and Canada have no legal protection. Eery day millions of chickens are paralyzed with electric shocks in slaughterhouses, caged, starved, debeaked, buried alive, trashed at birth, infected with Salmonella, and tortured in laboratories. Chickens are excluded from the U.S. Humane Slaughter Act and the Animal Welfare Act.

UPC will also be holding two protest events in Washington, DC in April, including leafletting at the annual White House egg roll on April 21.

Source:

UPC 13th Annual Spring Vigil for Chicken. Press Release, United Poultry Concerns, March 12, 2003.

In Defense of Animals Appalled at Oprah's Mink Slippers

Posted on by
Reply

In Defense of Animals sent to a newsletter in late January including an item expressing its outrage over Oprah Winfrey’s apparent fondness for fur,

On a recent Oprah Winfrey Show, Oprah gave all of her guests a gift of mink-trimmed slippers in drawstring mink bags. Please let Oprah know that animals raised for fur are kept in miserable conditions [etc., etc.] . . .

You know when Oprah Winfrey’s handing out mink slippers, all of this nonsense from activists about the fur industry being on the run is about as accurate as everything else the animal rights movement produces.

Source:

In Defense of Animals Newsletter. In Defense of Animals, V.2, #3, January 31, 2003.

Anti-Fur Activist Yvonne Taylor Ready to Go to Jail — Don't Let Us Stop You, Yvonne

Posted on by
Reply

Scottish animal rights activist Yvonne Taylor made quite a splash in Paris recently with her efforts to disrupt fashion shows. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals member disrupted a Gaultier fashion show by jumping on the runway holding a banner reading “Fur Kills” while she chanted “Fur is dead” (thankfully the crowd was spared the sight of her naked body, unlike the poor citizens in Beijing who were subjected to that display).

In an interview with Scottish newspaper The Herald, Taylor said she is afraid of being arrested and possibly spending time in prison, but is ready to go to jail if that’s what it takes,

Although I’m petrified, it’s nothing compared to what these animals go through. When a model is on the catwalk wearing fur, all I can see is an animal suffering. If I thought about consequences I’d never do anything. Prison is always a possibility, but I just can’t think about it.

Don’t worry, with a bit of luck Taylor will have plenty of time to think about it at some point.

Not that she’d be missing much. According to The Herald, Taylor is a professional protester who “has turned her back on a nine-to-five job and instead campaigns for animal rights” full time. In addition to stripping and chanting for PETA, she is a coordinator with the Scotland-based Advocates for Animals.

Taylor adds that she plans to do this for the rest of her life,

I will never stop. Even when I’m an old lady I will drop my clothes to keep fur off people’s backs.

Probably beats seeing Bruce Friedrich streaking for some nonsense, but not by much. But the important point here is that she is exactly right — she will have to be taking her clothes off when she’s 80 because the fur industry will still be around and going strong. At least Taylor understands the futility of her little stunts.

Source:

Fur protester ready to go to jail for the cause. Catherine Lyst, The Herald (Scotland), March 12, 2003.

Naked fur protesters freed. The BBC, October 24, 2002.

PETA Activists Confront Gaultier on the Catwalk. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, March 3, 2003.

Animal Liberation Front Attacks Norwegian Feed Factories

Posted on by
Reply

The Associated Press reports that the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for attacks on two factories in Norway that produce feed for animals on fur farms.

A police official told the Associated Press,

We received an e-mail earlier claiming to be from the Animal Liberation Front taking responsibility for the two incidents. The investigation showed that the factories had been exposed to sabotage. This was according to the e-mail.

Activists firebombed a garage and attempted to set fire to trucks, though the Associated Press account was unclear on just how much damage the activists inflicted. Bjorn Dag Gundersen, a spokesman for the Norwegian Fur Breeder Association, did tell the Associated Press that any damages to the factory would be covered by insurance.

Source:

In Norway, police cite animal activists in attack on feed producers. Associated Press, March 10, 2003.

Home Office Investigation Clears Cambridge University Laboratory of Wrongdoing

Posted on by
Reply

Last May, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection released video footage that it claimed showed monkeys at a Cambridge University laboratory being abused by their caretakers who were not reporting the level of suffering actually experienced by the animals (see this story for background).

In February the UK Home Office released the results of its investigation which concluded that the primate laboratory was well managed and that there was no evidence of abuse nor any evidence that there was any sort of withholding of information by animal researchers or caretakers at Cambridge University.

According to the Home Office report (full report – PDF), the Cambridge University researchers did not cause any more suffering than was necessary to carry out their research on brain disorders such as amnesia, dementia, and Parkinson’s disease and that, moreover, the primate facility,

. . . meets, and in some respects exceeds the standards of housing and care set out in the relevant Home Office Codes of Practice, and that some examples of best practice are to be found there.

BUAV, meanwhile, condemned the report saying it was,

. . . utterly appalled and deeply angered by the complete dismissal of overwhelming evidence of animal suffering.

But the report noted numerous problems with BUAV’s videotapes,

The campaign videotape includes covert recordings of animals in the immediate and early-postoperative periods. The condition of the animals shown reflects a combination of the early effects of the surgery and anaesthesia, and the post-operative medication given. The surgical incisions shown reflect the extent of the surgical exposure required rather than the magnitude of the surgical procedure performed.

In some cases, BUAV outright distorted issues that laboratory personnel themselves had raised. Again, from the Home Office report on BUAV’s claim about overcrowding at the primate facility,

The BUAV report makes mention of stocking levels reaching “critical points” during 1999/2000 and needing to be resolved with “with [sic] some urgency.” Contemporary records confirm that the issue under consideration was how to manage breeding performance and available animal accommodation in order to remain in compliance rather than to deal with stocking levels that had resulted in non-compliance [as the BUAV report clearly implied].

Similarly, BUAV’s claims about other aspects of animal welfare don’t hold up under scrutiny. In its report, for example, BUAV claimed that “Common problems with primate groups include fighting injuries and bacterial and viral infections . . .” But according to the Home Office report,

The BUAV report suggests that animal health and welfare problems are commonplace in the animals bred, kept and used in the Cambridge facility. The specifics discussed include fight-related injuries, diarrhea, respiratory tract infections and dental abscesses.

. . . bearing in mind that the unit houses over 400 animals at anyone time, recorded injuries from fighting are uncommon. In 1999 there were two unequivocal confirmed cases of fight-related injuries, and a further five minor injuries where fighting may have played a part. In 2000 there were no confirmed cases, and only four minor other injuries where fighting may have played a part. In 2001 there were two confirmed fight-related injuries, and three other minor injuries where fighting may have played a part.

Diarrhea occurs occasionally. It is generally mild and sporadic, and seldom lasts for more than one day. Cultures are taken from all animals believed to have an infective disorder. Only one Salmonella infection has been recorded since May 1999.

Infective respiratory problems, that is significant upper respiratory tract infections and/or pneumonia, are uncommon and sporadic. Transmission is generally restricted to cage mates. These conditions are not endemic within the colony. Contemporary documents record five cases in 2000, and nine cases in 2001, again at times when the facility housed over 400 animals. The BUAV report describes an outbreak of pneumonia caused by Bordtella bronchispetica affecting five members of one family group in 2001. Rather than illustrating a chronic, widespread or endemic problem, the outbreak discussed in the BUAV report accounted for more than half of the respiratory tract infections recorded in 2001.

More proof that you simply can’t take animal rights-produced videos and still photos at face value. BUAV, for its part, seemed more interested in creating video footage for its own purposes than actually helping to stop alleged animal abuse at the Cambridge University laboratory. For example, consider this odd statement from the Home Office report,

Cambridge University co-operated fully with this review.

The Home Office invite BUAV to provide the evidence on which their concerns are based, and to allow their investigator to be interviewed for the purposes of this review. BUAV declined.

How predictable.

Sources:

A Review By The Chief Inspector Of The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate Of Aspects Of Non-Human Primate Research At Cambridge University.

Monkey research cleared by report. Roger Highfield, The Daily Telegraph, February 12, 2003.

Aspects of Non-human Primate Research at Cambridge University: A Review by the Chief Inspector. UK Home Office, October 2002.

Bruce Friedrich Spins Support for Animal Rights Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

The Associated Press ran a story in February about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ support for animal rights terrorism. The story centered around the Center for Consumer Freedom’s excellent work documenting PETA’s financial support for terrorist groups, including its donation to the Earth Liberation Front.

It is interesting to look at how PETA presents itself to the public when talking to reporters for articles like this compared to what it says when the audience is mainly other animal rights activists.

The AP reports, for example, that Bruce Friedrich told its reporter that PETA always carries out its activities legally and says of PETA’s critics,

They’re good at coming up with the best smear tactics that (public relations) firms can devise. At the end of the day, what PETA is fighting for is kindness.

But it was Bruce Friedrich who said at Animal Rights 2001 that while he personally doesn’t “blow up stuff,”

. . . I do advocate it, and I think it’s a great way to bring about animal liberation.

It was Friedrich, not the CCF, who revealed his thuggish nature when telling a reporter that PETA would protest at a church pig roast and added that,

I wouldn’t rule out turning over tables.

And, of course, it was Friedrich who wrote an essay several years ago defending the importance of “direct action” activities such as those carried about by the Animal Liberation Front saying,

I have found that Animal Liberation Front activities speak to people, regardless of their belief in animal rights. They “get it.”

. . .

Considering the power of our opposition, can you imagine where we would be without surprise direct actions and the secrecy required for so much of what we do?

Of course if I had repeatedly defended and advocated violence and thuggery, I’d probably not want to mention that to a reporter either and pretend that all PETA does is “fight for kindness” (gee, why didn’t he just throw in a line about defending Mom and apple pie while he was at it?)

Source:

Food industry questions PETA’s backing of violent activists. Associated Press, February 16, 2003.

Is Soya Milk Consumption Linked to Peanut Allergy?

Posted on by
Reply

Researchers at the Univerity of Bristol are reporting a possible link between early childhood consumption of soya milk and peanut allergies.

The finding comes as part of a study of 14,000 infants. Of the 49 infants in that sample who had peanut allergies, almost 25 percent hd consumed soya milk in their first two years of life.

Imperial College’s Dr. Gideon Lack told the BBC, “These results suggest that senisitsation to peantu may possibly occur . . . as a result of soya exposure.”

This is, however, obviously a small sample of children with peanut allergies and much more research needs to be done to determine if this is a real effect or simply a statistical artifact.

Source:

Allergy ‘may be linked to soya milk’. The BBC, March 11, 2003.

SHAC Activists Sentenced

Posted on by
Reply

The Earth Liberation Prisoners Information Bulletin recently reported that Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Activist Nathan Brasfield plead guilty to a felony charge of theft of telecommunication services and was sentenced “to just over 12 months imprisonment.”

With time served, Brasfield will likely leave prison sometime in June 2003.

Also, according to the ELP, Jennifer Greenberg and Joshua Schwartz were both sentenced in January to one year in jail for their roles in an April 2002 protest at the home of a Marsh Inc. executive.

Source:

ELP Information Bulletin, March 10, 2003.

Inquest Complete on Barry Horne's Death

Posted on by
Reply

A British jury recently completed an inquest on the death of animal rights activists Barry Horne who died while on a hunger strike in prison. Horne had een sentenced to 18 years in jail after being convicted of numerous acts of arson in a two-year firebombing campaign he carried out in the United Kingdom.

The inquest’s purpose was to ensure that Horne was of sound mind and body and free from coercion when he made the decision to die.

The jury heard evidence that Horne was not mentally ill when he commenced his final hunger strike and that he had left written instructions that he was not to be fed. The report of a psychiatrist who interviewed Horne said that the animal rights extremist thought he “would win by dying,” apparently believing that his death would force the British government to ban medical research with animals.

Sources:

Open verdict on hunger strike. ICCoventry.Co.Uk, March 11, 2003.

Hunger striker’s inquest. Sky News, March 11, 2003.