Daily Archives: March 16, 2004

Judge Rules Against Louisiana Sheriff Who Declared Cockfighting Cruel

Posted on by
Reply

Although Louisiana is one of the last two states where cockfighting is legal, Caddo Parish Sheriff Steve Prator had nonetheless cited cockfighters since November 2003 under the parish’s animal cruelty law. In early February, however, state Judge Charles Scott ruled that Prator must cease enforcing the local animal cruelty statute where it is in conflict with the state statute, meaning the cockfights must be allowed to go on.

Scott said the case was not about whether or not cockfighting was barbaric, but rather whether local animal cruelty statutes could trump the state statute. In his decision, Scott wrote,

Some may call it barbaric. Some may call it sport. Others may call it business. Whatever your view, this case is about whether persons in Caddo Parish may rely on state law, which does not prohibit cockfighting, or whether they are subject to fine and/or jail under the parish ordinance.

When citizens of this state, and those visiting from outside this state, cannot rely on state law to govern their conduct but must instead be fearful of criminal penalties from a parish ordinance which is in conflict with state law, the residual police power of the state has been abridged by the conflicting ordinance and cannot stand.

Prator said that his office would immediately end its efforts to block a couple of local cockfighting arenas. Prator told the Shreveport Times,

We were just awaiting the judge to tell us which law to enforce, and so now we’ve got that and we’ll act accordingly. Our job is not to determine the morality of an activity, but to enforce any and all laws applicable to that activity. In this case the judge says we should not enforce the parish law and therefore we won’t. It doesn’t really ruffle my feathers.

Humane Society of the United States’ Wayne Pacelle had attended the hearing when the judge heard from both sides and said he was disappointed by the outcome. “We’re disappointed that the judge is going to allow this animal cruelty to continue in Caddo Parish,” Pacelle told the Shreveport Times. “It seems a clear matter of law that the parish can decide for itself to outlaw instigated fights between animals.”

Sources:

Judge: Caddo sheriff can’t stop cockfights. Don Walker, Shreveport Times (Louisiana), February 4, 2004.

Judge’s ruling allows cockfighting in Caddo Parish. Associated Press, February 3, 2004.

PETA Activists Defends "Sexy" Protests for the Animals

Posted on by
Reply

Trulie Ankerberg-Nobis is a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals activist who has participated in what she calls “eye-catching” PETA demonstrations, such as dressing up in dominatrix outfit. In a recent article published in the Animal Rights Online newsletter, Ankerbert-Nobis defended such actions and attacked critics within the animal rights movement who criticize and sometimes even protest such events. Ankerberg-Nobis wrote,

I am an animal rights activist. I am also a feminist: I believe that womenÂ’s interests deserve equal consideration in all of life’s circumstances. I also am a PETA supporter and have volunteered for many of their “eye-catching” demos. I have dressed in a cow’s suit and a fur coat with a bag over my head. I have also worn a pleather “dominatrix” outfit to educate about the cruelty in leather and protested the circus as a tiger in a cage wearing orange body paint, pasties, and underwear. Most recently, with PETA I helped distribute Tofurkys as a “sexy Santa” in a mini skirt, crop top and high-heeled boots.

In cities throughout the Midwest we asked people to consider the animals this holiday season by going vegetarian. Many local activists were very helpful to us; their desire to help animals was very apparent. But we were not met with open arms at every location; in fact, some animal rights activists found this an occasion to protest us by not participating and emailing their condemnation of what they claimed is a “sexist” and “exploitive” kind of activism. I know that many take issue with “sexy” demos and ads for animal rights because this is believed to not be in keeping with a feminist perspective. However, as a woman and feminist, I believe that these demos are very much in sync with feminism. They are created by and volunteered for by women, smart women who realize that these costumes get valuable attention. The media is more impressed with demos where activists are in these costumes than others. This is a simple fact and PETA generates more media attention from their demos than many others. . . .

It’s ironic [no, it's not -- please consult a dictionary] that none of the activists offended at my sexy costume spoke to me. My male companion was the only one to hear their objections. I may have been considered too submissive and un- opinionated to have an answer and they “respect women” too much to discuss the issues with me. They may have been afraid to hear what I might have to say. Maybe they thought I was chained up and gagged by PETA since they were “using and objectifying” me? Did they think that I was nothing more than a sexual piece of meat who didnÂ’t know what was being done to her or able to make her own choices? This thinking further perpetuates the idea that women are incapable of taking care of themselves and taking on very serious activism for animal rights.

. . .

I donÂ’t think that women have achieved all that there is achieve for equality. But I do believe that, at least for women in America, we donÂ’t have that much farther to go. Compare this to the animals who are blowtorched, mutilated, vaginally electrocuted, impregnated to have their babies ripped from them and then tortured for their milk and meat, hacked open for science, and beaten, exploded and tormented for entertainment. In all seriousness, who is the exploited group? Considering the immensity of the problem of animal exploitation, I find that the majority of the complaining about PETA and their “using” women to be a distraction that needs to stop. I donÂ’t believe, and I’m sure that many will be offended at this, that people who choose to make an issue about women in PETA demos and ads have really considered the animals first. I would suspect that the animals would think that you could help them in better ways than sending off your emails in protest of PETA.

Right, because wearing a sexy Santa outfit or appearing as a dominatrix really stopped the sales of fur dead in its tracks, didn’t it? You have to have a special place in your heart for people who think that if they crawl in a cage they are engaged in important and effective political action.

Source:

Live Nude Girls: A Feminist Animal Rights Activist Tells Her Story. Trulie Ankerberg-Norris, Animal Rights Online Newsletter, February 1, 2004.

Nepal's Rhesus Breeding Program Draws Opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Nepal and the Nepal and the Natural History Society of Nepal recently reached an agreement whereby that country will host a rhesus monkey breeding program designed to supply the United States and other countries with rhesus monkeys for animal research programs. The agreement has drawn the ire of animal rights activists and groups.

The Washington National Primate Center is working closely with the Natural History Society to set up the breeding program. The Washington National Primate Center has helped start similar breeding programs in Indonesia and Russia to supply monkeys to for biomedical research in the United States.

Back in 2002 when this idea first was considered, the International Primate Protection League urged its supporters,

Please send a letter to the officials whose addresses are listed below requesting that Nepal not establish a biomedical breeding and research facility in conjunction with a laboratory funded by the US Government. Postage from the United States to Nepal costs 80 cents per ounce.

Request that Nepal not build a monkey laboratory and that it not export monkeys at a time when there is an increased demand for monkeys to be used in painful and lethal experimentation into biological warfare and other infectious disease agents.

According to the IPPL, almost 19,000 primates were imported into the United States in 2002.

Sources:

Nepal Plans a Monkey Lab: Please Protest. Press Release, International Primate Protection League, November 2002.

Nepal Activists Say No Monkey Exports for Lab Tests. Keshab Poudel, OneWorld, February 2, 2004.

British Judge Grants Anti-SHAC Injunction for Emerson Development

Posted on by
Reply

In January a High Court judge in Great Britain granted Emerson Developments an injunction against several animal rights groups and individuals that will restrict how and where the activists can protest against Emerson Developments and its employees.

Emerson is a property company that has been targeted by activists because it leases property in the UK to Japanese firm Yamanouchi. Yamanouchi, in turn, is a major customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences. According to the Financial Times, 19 Emerson directors were sent letters purportedly from the Animal Rights Militia accusing them of “swimming in the blood of innocent animals” and threatening “violent retribution” if Emerson does not end its relationship with Yamanouchi.

Named in the injunction were the Animal Rights Militia, the Animal Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty as well as SHAC activists Greg Avery, Natasha Avery, and Heather James.

For its part, SHAC issued a statement claiming,

Following legal advice, the three defendants and SHAC wish to clarify that these companies are not, and never have been, targets of the SHAC campaign or of interest to the three named defendants.

Sources:

Judge puts curbs on Huntingdon activists. Nikki Tait, The Financial Times (London), January 27, 2004.

SHAC, The Alf, The Animal Rights Militia And Yamanouchi’S Landlords – SHAC Statement. Press Release, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, January 24, 2004.

Legislation used to contain protesters. Tiesenhausen Cave, The Financial Times (London), January 28, 2004.

Another Review of Jeffrey Masson’s Latest Book

Posted on by
Reply

Tom Fort wrote an amusing review of Jeffrey Masson’s book, The Pig Who Sang to the Moon. As you might remember, Masson is the animal rights activist/vegan wannabe who puts his own appetites above consideration for the poor chickens.

Anyway, in a review of Masson’s book for The Sunday Telegraph, Fort writes,

It is amazing what one can read in an animal’s eyes if one tries hard enough. But misunderstandings can happen. Masson refers to an encounter between a female animal rights campaigner and a boar imprisoned in a factory farm shed. The boar fixed his visitor with “those sad, intelligent penetrating eyes”, and she interpreted his question: “Why are you doing this to me?” The sceptic is entitled to as why, if the pig’s intelligence was so acute, could it not tell she was an ally?

. . .

But Masson sabotages his case by his own conceit. He cannot bothered with presenting any neurological evidence about animal responses, relying instead on assertions based on the impression of himself and other crusaders in the vegan cause. One, having spent a good deal of time with wild turkeys, reported that he had “never kept better company nor known better companionship.” Another says of her cows: “They are much nicer than us, more integrated, more whole.” A lady university professor in New Zealand explains her decision to live among 200 goats by their willingness to give her “unconditional love.”

Jeffery Masson and the others prefer the company of animals because — knowing nothing about what is really going on in their heads — they can imagine anything. They ignore the fact that the beasts would look just as genially on a Dr. Shipman as on them. Another advantage in the one-way relationship is that none of these creatures, however eloquently they grunt, moo, cluck or quack, can actually talk; and thus there is no way for them to let even someone as attuned to their ways as Jeffrey Masson know that he is talking tripe.

Or maybe the animals are just horrified when they look upon Masson and imagine him voraciously consuming eggs.

Source:

Animals are people too. Tom Fort, Sunday Telegraph (London), January 18, 2004.

Paul Watson Attempts Takeover of the Sierra Club

Posted on by
Reply

Paul Watson’s announcement last summer at AR 2003 that he was just three seats away from controlling the board of the Sierra Club suddenly started getting a lot of media attention in early 2004 as the Sierra Club’s April election deadline comes closer.

The Sierra Club, of course, has a $95 million budget which Watson wants to control in order to push his agenda. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Watson said at that time,

One of the reasons that I’m on the, um, the Sierra Club board of directors right now is to try and change it Â… we’re only three directors away from controlling that board. We control one-third of it right now. And, uh, once we get three more directors elected, the Sierra Club will not, no longer be pro-hunting and pro-trapping and we can use the resources of the $95-million-a-year budget to address some of these issues. And the heartening thing about it is that, in the last election, of the 750,000 members of the Sierra Club, only 8 percent of them voted. So, you know, a few hundred, or a few thousand people from the animal rights movement joining the Sierra Club — and making it a point to vote — will change the entire agenda of that organization.

According to Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, about 18 percent of Sierra Club members fish or hunt, and Pope worries that those individuals would be driven from the organization and that it would end up marginal,

It’s important to have hunters and fisherman in the Sierra Club. We are a big-tent organization. We want the Sierra Club to be a big-tent organization. We want the Sierra Club to be a comfortable place for Americans who want clean air, clean water, and to protect America’s open spaces.

The most amusing commentary on the controversy came from FARM USA’s Alex Hershaft who distributed a letter charging that it was, in fact, the hunters and fisherman who were trying to take over the Sierra Club rather than vice versa. According to Hershaft,

The Sierra Club, with 750,000 members and a $95 million annual budget, is being hijacked by the hunting, trapping, and fishing cadres in the forthcoming Board election. Their leaders have been urging members to join the Sierra Club in droves. We can not do any less.

Hershaft parted ways with reality long ago, so this claim should not surprise anyone.

According to Hershaft the three candidates the animal rights activists want to win are activists Kim McCoy and Robert Roy van de Hoek as well as Cornell University Professor David Pimentel.

Pimentel is part of the other group that is trying to hijack the Sierra Club — an organized effort by right wingers and extreme environmentalists to turn the Sierra Club into an anti-immigration organization. A few years ago this coalition managed to put up to a vote by the members a proposed anti-immigration stance that they wanted the Sierra Club would take, but that failed. Along with Dick Lamm and Frank Morris and promoted by racist web sites like VDARE.Org, the anti-immigration effort has also seen the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Morris Dees enter his name as a candidate for the board in order to protest and highlight the anti-immigration effort.

Sources:

Keep the Sierra Club Out of Hunters’ Clutches! Letter, Alex Hershaft, January 23, 2004.

Sierra Club: Ever More Radical. Center for Consumer Freedom, September 4, 2003.

PETA Activists Defends “Sexy” Protests for the Animals

Posted on by
Reply

Trulie Ankerberg-Nobis is a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals activist who has participated in what she calls “eye-catching” PETA demonstrations, such as dressing up in dominatrix outfit. In a recent article published in the Animal Rights Online newsletter, Ankerbert-Nobis defended such actions and attacked critics within the animal rights movement who criticize and sometimes even protest such events. Ankerberg-Nobis wrote,

I am an animal rights activist. I am also a feminist: I believe that womenÂ’s interests deserve equal consideration in all of life’s circumstances. I also am a PETA supporter and have volunteered for many of their “eye-catching” demos. I have dressed in a cow’s suit and a fur coat with a bag over my head. I have also worn a pleather “dominatrix” outfit to educate about the cruelty in leather and protested the circus as a tiger in a cage wearing orange body paint, pasties, and underwear. Most recently, with PETA I helped distribute Tofurkys as a “sexy Santa” in a mini skirt, crop top and high-heeled boots.

In cities throughout the Midwest we asked people to consider the animals this holiday season by going vegetarian. Many local activists were very helpful to us; their desire to help animals was very apparent. But we were not met with open arms at every location; in fact, some animal rights activists found this an occasion to protest us by not participating and emailing their condemnation of what they claimed is a “sexist” and “exploitive” kind of activism. I know that many take issue with “sexy” demos and ads for animal rights because this is believed to not be in keeping with a feminist perspective. However, as a woman and feminist, I believe that these demos are very much in sync with feminism. They are created by and volunteered for by women, smart women who realize that these costumes get valuable attention. The media is more impressed with demos where activists are in these costumes than others. This is a simple fact and PETA generates more media attention from their demos than many others. . . .

It’s ironic [no, it's not -- please consult a dictionary] that none of the activists offended at my sexy costume spoke to me. My male companion was the only one to hear their objections. I may have been considered too submissive and un- opinionated to have an answer and they “respect women” too much to discuss the issues with me. They may have been afraid to hear what I might have to say. Maybe they thought I was chained up and gagged by PETA since they were “using and objectifying” me? Did they think that I was nothing more than a sexual piece of meat who didnÂ’t know what was being done to her or able to make her own choices? This thinking further perpetuates the idea that women are incapable of taking care of themselves and taking on very serious activism for animal rights.

. . .

I donÂ’t think that women have achieved all that there is achieve for equality. But I do believe that, at least for women in America, we donÂ’t have that much farther to go. Compare this to the animals who are blowtorched, mutilated, vaginally electrocuted, impregnated to have their babies ripped from them and then tortured for their milk and meat, hacked open for science, and beaten, exploded and tormented for entertainment. In all seriousness, who is the exploited group? Considering the immensity of the problem of animal exploitation, I find that the majority of the complaining about PETA and their “using” women to be a distraction that needs to stop. I donÂ’t believe, and I’m sure that many will be offended at this, that people who choose to make an issue about women in PETA demos and ads have really considered the animals first. I would suspect that the animals would think that you could help them in better ways than sending off your emails in protest of PETA.

Right, because wearing a sexy Santa outfit or appearing as a dominatrix really stopped the sales of fur dead in its tracks, didn’t it? You have to have a special place in your heart for people who think that if they crawl in a cage they are engaged in important and effective political action.

Source:

Live Nude Girls: A Feminist Animal Rights Activist Tells Her Story. Trulie Ankerberg-Norris, Animal Rights Online Newsletter, February 1, 2004.

AAEP Clarifies Its Non-Position on Horse Slaughter Bill

Posted on by
Reply

In writing about a proposed ban on horse slaughter introduced into the U.S. Congress, this web site quoted from an American Veterinary Medical Association press release that said as follows,

According to the American Association of Equine Practitioners, subsistence care for these horses would cost approximately $1825/horse/year, resulting in a potential funding requirement of $100 million/year during the first year of HR 857Â’s enactment. Adding more horses ever year to the pool of those needing care means that these costs will only increase.

In January the AAEP clarified its position on the horse slaughter bill after it was accused of attempting to prevent or stall the bill’s passage by an anti-slaughter group.

Outgoing AAEP president Dr. Tom Lenz told veterinary magazine DVM that while his group was not “proactively opposing” the horse slaughter bill, his group didn’t necessarily have a very high opinion of it either,

Our approach is to educate the horse owner and the legislature and try to protect the health and welfare of the horse. . . . Honestly the people who propose these bills and support them don’t honestly understand the issue. They tend to look at this as an emotional issue – these are horses, our companions and we’re sending them off to slaughter.

In a prepared statement, the AAEP said of horse slaughter,

Our association believes slaughter is not the most desirable option for addressing the problem of unwanted horses. However, if a horse owner is not able or willing to provide humane care, the AAEP believes that euthanasia at a processing facility is a humane alternative to a life of suffering, inadequate care and possibly abandonment.

The AEEP has concerns about a number of the provisions of the proposed ban, and might be willing to support the bill if those concerns were addressed. For example, an obvious problem with the proposed ban is that it calls for unwanted animals to receive care, but leaves no provision for funding such care. According to DVM,

Specific to the bill, H.R. 857, referred to as the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, AAEP says it would consider supporting passage if specific revisions were made:

  • Funding of care for unwanted horses. As the bill stands, it does not address financial support for unwanted horses voluntarily given up by their owners. AAEP expresses concern that horse rescue and retirement groups will not have adequate resources without federal funding.

“The bill says the fed funds may be appropriated if horses are confiscated,” Lenz says. “But we don’t think that’s adequate-’maybe.’ We definitely have to have some funds allocated to that.”

Lenz also told DVM that proponents of the bill are lying about the humaneness or cruelty of different methods of slaughter,

They’re making a judgment on what’s an acceptable humane form of euthanasia. I’ve been to the slaughter plant in Texas and it is extremely humane. Proponents of the bill are misleading people in describing the procedure. This is an issue that has to be based on scientific fact. Our goal is to be the voice of reason, because the proponents tend to push this on an emotional level.

The full text of the proposed ban on horse slaughter can be read here.

Source:

AAEP clarifies stance on horse slaughter. Stephanie Davis, DVM Newsmagazine, January 1, 2004.

Nepal’s Rhesus Breeding Program Draws Opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Nepal and the Nepal and the Natural History Society of Nepal recently reached an agreement whereby that country will host a rhesus monkey breeding program designed to supply the United States and other countries with rhesus monkeys for animal research programs. The agreement has drawn the ire of animal rights activists and groups.

The Washington National Primate Center is working closely with the Natural History Society to set up the breeding program. The Washington National Primate Center has helped start similar breeding programs in Indonesia and Russia to supply monkeys to for biomedical research in the United States.

Back in 2002 when this idea first was considered, the International Primate Protection League urged its supporters,

Please send a letter to the officials whose addresses are listed below requesting that Nepal not establish a biomedical breeding and research facility in conjunction with a laboratory funded by the US Government. Postage from the United States to Nepal costs 80 cents per ounce.

Request that Nepal not build a monkey laboratory and that it not export monkeys at a time when there is an increased demand for monkeys to be used in painful and lethal experimentation into biological warfare and other infectious disease agents.

According to the IPPL, almost 19,000 primates were imported into the United States in 2002.

Sources:

Nepal Plans a Monkey Lab: Please Protest. Press Release, International Primate Protection League, November 2002.

Nepal Activists Say No Monkey Exports for Lab Tests. Keshab Poudel, OneWorld, February 2, 2004.

HLS Offers Criticism of Company that Withdraws Under SHAC Pressure

Posted on by
Reply

As far as I can remember, Huntingdon Life Sciences has never criticized a company that severed its relationship with the testing firm due to pressure from animal rights activists. To some extent, it’s difficult to blame companies that don’t want their employees and their families subject to harassment because they happen to provide cleaning supplies or some other tangential service to Huntingdon.

But when Securicor announced it would not renew its current contract with HLS, a spokesman for HLS criticized the move and rightly so, in this writer’s opinion.

Securicor is a private security firm that provided security guards and other personnel to protect HLS facilities. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty recently targeted Securicor, and the firm capitulated very quickly, drawing a bit of criticism from an HLS spokesman who was quoted by Cambridge News as saying,

It seems slightly ironic when their staff have been taking all this flak for years that they have a few demonstrations at their head office and they capitulate.

Apparently when the working stiffs on the front lines were the subject of animal rights harassment that was perfectly okay as long as HLS kept signing those checks. The second a few of the company’s executives and manager had to experience this sort of harassment, however, and the company cut and run as quickly as it could.

Of course for good measure SHAC’s Greg Avery said his group would keep up the pressure on Securicor until the company withdrew its security personnel when its contract expires in March 2004.

Source:

HLS raps Securicor for contract decision. Cambridge News, February 2, 2004.