Same Old Gary Yourofsky

Gary Yourofsky’s relationship with People for the Ethical Treatment seems to have ended, but Yourofsky is still traveling around the country giving speeches in favor of vegetarianism with his Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow organization. And he’s still actively supporting violence.

According to CUNY student newspaper, The Word, Yourofsky gave presentations to a couple journalism classes there.

Yourofsky, who wore a gray Animal Liberation Front T-shirt, said he wanted to eradicate speciesism . . .

As part of his speech, Yourofsky cites famous and presumably admirable people who are vegetarians. But his list contains at least one oddity (emphasis added),

Yourofsky mentioned famous people like Martin Luther King Jr. III, Minister Louis Farrakhan, and author Alice Walker. All, he said, adopted vegan lifestyles because they view the killing of animals as a form of oppression.

Louis Farrakhan? The man who called Jews, Koreans and Vietnamese immigrants in New York “bloodsuckers”?

Well, at least Yourofsky has found someone as noxious as he to share his vegetarianism with.

Sources:

Veganistic Deja Vu. William Frances, The Word, January 5, 2006.

Million Man March: Its goal more widely accepted than its leader. CNN, October 17, 1995.

Three Activists Indicted in Wegmans Break-Ins

In early October, a grand jury indicted three animal rights activists in a series of break-ins at Wegmans Egg Farm in Wolcott, New York.

Adam Durand, 25; Melanie Ippolito, 21; and Megan Cosgrove,22, were indicted on several counts each including burglary, criminal mischief, petty larceny and criminal trespass.

The three activists allegedly broke into the egg farm several times in May and August 2004. They videotaped conditions at the facility and later released a short video through their group Compassionate Consumers. The activists also removed 11 hens from the facility.

Although not indicted, Compassionate Consumers activist Jodi Chemes was fired from her job at Deloitte & Touche after publicizing the tape’s release (Wegmans is a client of Deloitte & Touche).

According to the Times of Wayne County,

In the initial arraignment, it is alleged that the Durand and Ippolito used wire cutters to gain access to the manure rooms below the chicken houses. It was also stated that they took a total of 8 hens from the buildings on at least two occasions.

The grand jury indictment has Durand charged with three counts each of Felony Burglary in the 3rd Degree, Misdemeanor Petit Larceny and Criminal Trespass. Ippolito was charged with two counts each and Cosgrove with one count each.

The Times also reported that Compassionate Consumers offered to end its campaign against Wegmans if the egg producer agreed to reduce or drop the charges against the activists (the prosecutor in the case has said he will not reduce or drop the charges without Wegmans’ consent), but apparently the company refused such a deal.

Sources:

Jury indicts 3 in Wegmans Egg Farm case. Misty Edgecomb, Democrat and Chronicle, October 4, 2005.

Trio plucked by County Grand Jury for WegmanÂ’s Chicken Farm break-in. Times of Wayne County, 2005.

Three Activists Arrested, Fourth Loses Job in Wegmans Case

Three animal rights activists with Compassionate Consumers were recently charged with third-degree burglary, a felony, and a fourth was fired from her job, all stemming from several incidents in which the activists allegedly broke into Wegmans’ New York egg farm in order to videotape conditions at the farm.

Adam Durand, 25; Melanie Ippolito, 21; and Megan Cosgrove were arrested and charged with third-degree bursarial which carries a maximum sentence of up to seven years in jail.

On the tape, Durand admits that he videotaped the group’s break-ins at the farm while Ippolito and Cosgrove appear on camera describing how they removed animals from the facility.

Durand told the Finger Lake Times that the trio knew a burglary charge was a possibility, but that it was worth the risk. The newspaper quoted Durand as saying,

We plan on showing up to court and, of course, we’re going to continue to promote the film and raise awareness.

The activists were, however, apparently surprised at the charges they faced. According to the Democrat & Chroncile, the three apparently thought they would only face trespassing charges which carries just a $75 fine. Wegmans, however, has apparently pressed prosecutors to bring the burgarly charges rather than settling for just trespassing charges.

The video the three taped was publicized in July by Compassionate Consumers spokeswoman Jodi Chemes. Chemes was subsequently fired by accounting firm Deloitte & Touche.

Chemes told The Democrat & Chronicle that she believes her firing was due to her animal rights activism. Deloitte & Touche does accounting work for Wegmans Food Markets, and Chemes told The Democrat & Chronicle, “I believe Wegmans pressured them into firing me.”

Deloitte & Touche said it would not comment on a confidential personnel matter. Wegmans, however, said it did contact Deloitte & Touche about Chemes. According to The Democrat & Chronicle,

When news accounts of the animal rights documentary surfaced earlier this month, a representative of Deloitte called Wegmans to say “that one of their employees was involved,” she [Wegmans spokeswoman Joe Natale] said.

After that, “our only request to Deloitte & Touche was to assure us that the security of our information was guaranteed,” said Natale.

Sources:

Fired activist blame Wegmans. Corydon Ireland, Democrat & Chronicle, July 15, 2005.

Animal rights activists charged. Mike Maslanik, Finger Lake Times, August 9, 2005.

Third felony warrant issued in Wegmans Egg Farm Case. Corydon Ireland, Democrat & Chronicle, August 5, 2005.

We Don't Need Pro-Hunt Liars

Anti-hunters put out enough nonsense without pro-hunters adding their own lies and dishonesties. But that is precisely what two Heritage Foundation commentators do in an article on recent anti-hunting legislation at the state level.

In this case, Heritage’s Trent England and Steve Muscatello lie by omission. They selectively quote from a bill introduced by New York State Assemblyman Alexander Grannis to make it appear as if his bill would ban all hunting outright. Here’s England and Muscatello’s version (emphasis added),

New York has a large, vibrant hunting community outside its metropolitan areas. Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, who is from the nation’s largest metro area, has drafted a bill that could, if passed in its present form, make all hunting illegal in the Empire State. The text of New York State Assembly Bill 1850 reads, in part: “A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when … he or she intentionally kills … an animal or wild game [or] wild birds.” You don’t have to be a National Rifle Association die-hard to see the danger in a bill that makes pursuit of game, “so as to capture or kill,” a felony with a minimum one-year prison sentence and a $5,000 fine. Advocates, of course, claim this is merely a means to criminalize the torture of animals. But the phrase “intentionally kills,” in this context, clearly could apply to hunters as well as those who would mistreat animals for fun.

Now compare the text of the bill’s language that England and Muscatello quote compared to the full text of the bill, (emphasis added),

A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal, OR WILD GAME AND WILD BIRDS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW, with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, “aggravated cruelty” shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner.

So the bill doesn’t call for prosecuting people who kill wildlife, but rather people who kill wildlife “with no justifiable purpose” and with the intention of inflicting extreme pain or killing in an extremely depraved or sadistic manner.

Rather than focus on “no justifiable purpose” or “in an especially depraved or sadistic manner”, England deceives readers into thinking that the bill applies to any intentional killing of wildlife, such as hunting.

This is an outrageous distortion. The last thing those of us who oppose the animal rights movement and its anti-hunting agenda need are people like England and Muscatello adopting PETA-like tactics and distorting the truth.

Source:

Hunters in the Crosshairs. Trent England and Steve Muscatello, Heritage Foundation, March 31, 2005.

New York Assemblyman Wants Anti-Hunting Office

In February, New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz introduced a bill in that state’s legislature to create a new Office of Advocacy for Wildlife that would, among other things, be charged with finding alternatives to hunting for managing wildlife populations.

Assembly Bill 4306 would create this new agency which would be charged with, among other things,

To study, develop, encourage and provide assistance for non-lethal management of wildlife.

The full text of AB4306 can be read here.

Source:

New York Bill Creates Anti-Hunting Office. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, March 2005.

New York State Assembly Bill 4306

 S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
       ________________________________________________________________________

                                         4306

                              2005-2006 Regular Sessions

                                 I N  A S S E M B L Y

                                   February 9, 2005
                                      ___________

       Introduced  by  M. of A. ORTIZ, ESPAILLAT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of
         A. ROBINSON, SEMINERIO, TOWNS -- read once and referred to the Commit-
         tee on Governmental Operations

       AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to creating the office of
         advocate for wildlife

         THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
       BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    1    Section  1.  The executive law is amended by adding a new article 49-C
    2  to read as follows:
    3                                ARTICLE 49-C
    4                       OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE
    5  SECTION 998.   DEFINITIONS.
    6          998-A. OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE.
    7          998-B. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICE.
    8          998-C. ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE.
    9          998-D. ASSISTANCE OF OTHER STATE AGENCIES.
   10          998-E. GRANTS OR GIFTS.
   11          998-F. REPORTS.
   12    S 998. DEFINITIONS. AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE:
   13    1.  "ADVOCACY"  MEANS  THE  ACT  OF  PROMOTING  AND  ENCOURAGING   THE
   14  PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
   15  TATS.
   16    2.  "COUNCIL"  MEANS  THE  ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE CREATED BY
   17  SECTION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-C OF THIS ARTICLE.
   18    3. "OFFICE" MEANS THE OFFICE  OF  ADVOCATE  FOR  WILDLIFE  CREATED  BY
   19  SECTION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-A OF THIS ARTICLE.
   20    4.  "WILDLIFE"  MEANS  ALL ANIMAL LIFE EXISTING IN A WILD STATE IN THE
   21  STATE OF NEW YORK INCLUDING "FISH" AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH A OF SUBDIVI-
   22  SION ONE, "GAME" AS  DEFINED  IN  SUBDIVISION  TWO  AND  "SHELLFISH"  AS
   23  DEFINED  IN  SUBDIVISION  NINE  OF  SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
   24  CONSERVATION LAW.

        EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                             { } is old law to be omitted.
                                                                  LBD06532-01-5

       A. 4306                             2

    1    5. "ADVOCATE" MEANS THE STATE ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE APPOINTED PURSUANT
    2  TO SECTION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-A OF THIS ARTICLE.
    3    6.  "STATE  AGENCY"  MEANS  ANY DEPARTMENT, BOARD, BUREAU, COMMISSION,
    4  DIVISION, OFFICE, COUNCIL OR AGENCY OF THE STATE, OR  A  PUBLIC  BENEFIT
    5  CORPORATION  OR  PUBLIC  AUTHORITY  AT  LEAST  ONE  OF  WHOSE MEMBERS IS
    6  APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR.
    7    S 998-A. OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE. 1. THERE IS  HEREBY  CREATED
    8  WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AN OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE.
    9    2.  THE  HEAD OF SUCH OFFICE SHALL BE THE STATE ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE,
   10  WHO SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE  GOVERNOR  BY  AND  WITH  THE  ADVICE  AND
   11  CONSENT  OF  THE  SENATE,  AND  SHALL HOLD OFFICE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
   12  GOVERNOR. THE ADVOCATE SHALL RECEIVE AN ANNUAL SALARY TO BE FIXED BY THE
   13  GOVERNOR WITHIN THE AMOUNT  AVAILABLE  THEREFOR  BY  APPROPRIATION.  THE
   14  ADVOCATE  SHALL  ALSO  BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES
   15  ACTUALLY AND NECESSARILY INCURRED IN  THE  PERFORMANCE  OF  HIS  OR  HER
   16  DUTIES.
   17    3. THE ADVOCATE MAY APPOINT SUCH OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, CONSULT-
   18  ANTS  AND  SPECIAL COMMITTEES AS HE OR SHE MAY DEEM NECESSARY, PRESCRIBE
   19  THEIR DUTIES, FIX THEIR COMPENSATION AND PROVIDE  FOR  REIMBURSEMENT  OF
   20  THEIR EXPENSES WITHIN THE AMOUNTS AVAILABLE THEREFOR BY APPROPRIATION.
   21    S 998-B. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICE. THE PRIMARY TASKS OF THE
   22  OFFICE  SHALL BE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF WILDLIFE, AND ASSURING, ON BEHALF
   23  OF THE STATE, THAT PROPER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THE NEED TO PROTECT,
   24  CONSERVE AND PRESERVE WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS. TO CARRY OUT  SUCH
   25  TASKS THE OFFICE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWER AND DUTIES:
   26    1.  TO ADVISE AND ASSIST THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE AND STATE AGEN-
   27  CIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE POLICIES DESIGNED TO PROTECT,  CONSERVE
   28  AND PRESERVE WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
   29    2.  TO STUDY THE OPERATION OF LAWS RELATING TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND
   30  RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE AND STATE AGENCIES  NEW  LAWS
   31  AND  AMENDMENTS  OF EXISTING LAWS FOR WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND TO COMMENT
   32  ON NEW LAWS AND AMENDMENTS OF EXISTING LAWS PROPOSED BY STATE  AGENCIES,
   33  POLITICAL  SUBDIVISIONS  OF  THE STATE, THE LEGISLATURE, THE GOVERNOR OR
   34  OTHERS;
   35    3. TO COOPERATE WITH  STATE  AGENCIES  TO  ASSURE  THAT  POLICIES  AND
   36  PROGRAMS  WHICH  THE  LEGISLATURE  AND  THE GOVERNOR HAVE AUTHORIZED ARE
   37  PROVIDED IN A MANNER WHICH BEST SERVES THE GOALS OF PROTECTION,  CONSER-
   38  VATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
   39    4. TO INITIATE, INTERVENE IN, OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
   40  ANY  FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AGENCY OR IN ANY COURT
   41  OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHERE  THE  ADVOCATE
   42  DEEMS  SUCH INITIATION, INTERVENTION OR PARTICIPATION TO BE NECESSARY OR
   43  APPROPRIATE, FOR THE PROMOTION, PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF  WILDLIFE
   44  AND  WILDLIFE HABITATS AND TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF WILDLIFE BEFORE
   45  FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AND AGENCIES;
   46    5. TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE SEVENTY-EIGHT  OF  THE  CIVIL
   47  PRACTICE  LAW  AND  RULES FROM THE ACTIONS OF ANY STATE AGENCY AFFECTING
   48  WILDLIFE OR WILDLIFE HABITATS;
   49    6. TO  CONDUCT  INVESTIGATIONS,  RESEARCH,  STUDIES  AND  ANALYSES  OF
   50  MATTERS AFFECTING THE INTERESTS OF WILDLIFE WITHIN NEW YORK STATE;
   51    7.  TO REVIEW, COMMENT, AND REPORT ON THE ADEQUACY OF, AND PARTICIPATE
   52  IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS  PREPARED  BY  OR
   53  SUBMITTED TO ANY STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE;
   54    8.  TO  COOPERATE WITH AND ASSIST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER STATE
   55  AGENCIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE IN THE CARRYING OUT  OF

       A. 4306                             3

    1  THEIR LEGAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS AFFECT-
    2  ING THE INTERESTS OF WILDLIFE;
    3    9. TO STIMULATE COMMUNITY INTEREST IN THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND
    4  PRESERVATION  OF  WILDLIFE  AND  WILDLIFE HABITATS AND TO PROMOTE PUBLIC
    5  AWARENESS OF ACTIONS BEING PROPOSED OR TAKEN BY  STATE  AGENCIES,  POLI-
    6  TICAL  SUBDIVISIONS  OF THE STATE AND PRIVATE PARTIES WHICH AFFECT WILD-
    7  LIFE OR WILDLIFE  HABITATS  AS  WELL  AS  RESOURCES  AVAILABLE  FOR  THE
    8  PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
    9  TATS;
   10    10.  TO  ADVISE  AND ASSIST POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE IN THE
   11  DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVA-
   12  TION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
   13    11. TO PROVIDE A STATEWIDE INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICE  TO  REFER
   14  PERSONS  SEEKING  ASSISTANCE WITH REGARD TO THE PROTECTION, PRESERVATION
   15  AND CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
   16  OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR TO  ENTITIES  PROVIDING  SERVICES
   17  THROUGH  CONTRACTS WITH STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OR AGEN-
   18  CIES;
   19    12. TO COORDINATE THE ACTIVITIES  OF  ALL  STATE  AGENCIES  PERFORMING
   20  FUNCTIONS  AFFECTING WILDLIFE AND TO SERVE AS A CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFOR-
   21  MATION RELATING TO THE  PROTECTION,  CONSERVATION  AND  PRESERVATION  OF
   22  WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
   23    13.  TO ADVISE AND ASSIST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE IN THE
   24  DEVELOPMENT OF WILDLIFE EDUCATION PROGRAMS AS WELL AS COURSES  OF  STUDY
   25  FOR  PERSONS  ENGAGED  IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROGRAMS FOR THE PROTECTION,
   26  CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS WELL
   27  AS TO COORDINATE THE RESEARCH AND OTHER RESOURCES  OF  SUCH  EDUCATIONAL
   28  INSTITUTION  TO  SERVE  THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF
   29  WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT;
   30    14. TO ADVISE AND ASSIST THE GOVERNOR, THE  LEGISLATURE,  STATE  AGEN-
   31  CIES,  AND  PRIVATE  SECTOR ENTITIES IN THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
   32  INITIATIVES TO INCREASE THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF
   33  WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
   34    15. TO CONDUCT OR CAUSE  TO  BE  CONDUCTED  STUDIES  RELATING  TO  THE
   35  PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
   36  TATS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE;
   37    16.  TO  ENTER INTO CONTRACTS, WITHIN THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE THEREFOR BY
   38  APPROPRIATION, WITH INDIVIDUALS, ASSOCIATIONS, COOPERATIONS AND  GOVERN-
   39  MENTAL  AGENCIES IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY OF ITS POWERS OR THE PERFORMANCE
   40  OF ANY OF ITS DUTIES; AND
   41    17. TO STUDY, DEVELOP, ENCOURAGE AND PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR NON-LETHAL
   42  MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE.
   43    S 998-C. ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE. 1. THERE  SHALL  BE  WITHIN
   44  THE  OFFICE  AN  ADVISORY  COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE CONSISTING OF FIFTEEN
   45  MEMBERS TO BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR. IN  MAKING  SUCH  APPOINTMENTS,
   46  THE  GOVERNOR  SHALL  GIVE  DUE  CONSIDERATION TO REPRESENTATION FOR THE
   47  MAJOR REGIONS OF  THE  STATE.  IN  ADDITION  TO  THE  FIFTEEN  APPOINTED
   48  MEMBERS,  THE COUNCIL SHALL INCLUDE, EX-OFFICIO, NON-VOTING MEMBERS, THE
   49  COMMISSIONERS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE  AND  MARKETS,  ENVIRON-
   50  MENTAL  CONSERVATION, EDUCATION AND HEALTH. THE GOVERNOR SHALL DESIGNATE
   51  ONE OF THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO SERVE AS CHAIRPERSON  AND
   52  ONE  OF  THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO SERVE AS VICE-CHAIRPER-
   53  SON, AND EACH SHALL SO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE GOVERNOR. THE  COUN-
   54  CIL  SHALL  MEET FROM TIME TO TIME AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIRPERSON OR THE
   55  ADVOCATE.

       A. 4306                             4

    1    2. ALL APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL BE  APPOINTED  TO  SERVE
    2  FOR  A TERM OF THREE YEARS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT OF THE MEMBERS FIRST
    3  APPOINTED, FIVE SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR ONE YEAR TERMS AND FIVE SHALL  BE
    4  APPOINTED  FOR  TWO  YEAR  TERMS. ANY MEMBER APPOINTED TO FILL A VACANCY
    5  CREATED  OTHERWISE THAN BY EXPIRATION OF TERM SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR THE
    6  UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE MEMBER HE OR SHE IS APPOINTED TO SUCCEED.
    7    3. THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL  SERVE  WITHOUT  SALARY,
    8  BUT APPOINTED MEMBERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR ACTU-
    9  AL  AND NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL
   10  DUTIES.                                                                    11    4.  THE  COUNCIL  SHALL  ADVISE  THE  ADVOCATE  WITH  RESPECT  TO  THE
   12  PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
   13  TATS.
   14    S  998-D.  ASSISTANCE  OF  OTHER  STATE  AGENCIES.  TO  EFFECTUATE THE
   15  PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE, THE ADVOCATE MAY REQUEST FROM ANY STATE AGENCY
   16  OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, AND THE SAME  ARE  AUTHORIZED
   17  TO PROVIDE SUCH ASSISTANCE, SERVICES, FACILITIES AND DATA AS WILL ENABLE
   18  THE  OFFICE  TO CARRY OUT ITS FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES. INFORMATION,
   19  BOOKS, RECORDS OR DATA WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AS PROVIDED BY  LAW  SHALL
   20  BE  KEPT CONFIDENTIAL BY THE ADVOCATE AND ANY LIMITATIONS ON THE RELEASE
   21  THEREOF, IMPOSED BY LAW  UPON  THE  PARTY  FURNISHING  THE  INFORMATION,
   22  BOOKS, RECORDS OR DATA SHALL APPLY TO THE ADVOCATE.
   23    S  998-E.  GRANTS  OR  GIFTS.  THE  ADVOCATE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
   24  GOVERNOR, MAY ACCEPT AS AGENT OF THE STATE ANY GIFT,  GRANT,  DEVISE  OR
   25  BEQUEST,  WHETHER  CONDITIONAL  OR  UNCONDITIONAL  (NOTWITHSTANDING  THE
   26  PROVISIONS OF SECTION ELEVEN OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW), INCLUDING FEDER-
   27  AL GRANTS OR OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, FOR ANY OF THE PURPOSES OF THIS
   28  ARTICLE. ANY MONIES SO RECEIVED MAY BE EXPENDED BY THE OFFICE TO  EFFEC-
   29  TUATE ANY PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE, SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS AS TO
   30  APPROVAL  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND AUDIT AS ARE PRESCRIBED FOR STATE MONIES
   31  APPROPRIATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.
   32    S 998-F. REPORTS. THE OFFICE SHALL SUBMIT  AN  ANNUAL  REPORT  TO  THE
   33  GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE.
   34    S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
   35  ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
.SO DOC A 4306          *END*                    BTXT                 2005  

Animal Liberation Front Threatens Physical Harm to Partygoers

We’ve all heard the nonsense rhetoric from the activists — Animal Liberation Front is non-violent since burning down homes and research facilities doesn’t count as violence (in these folks’ ethical guide, a white racist burning down a black church is committing a nonviolent act of protest). But the North American Liberation Press Office issued a press release in December that contained a clear intent to physically harm — perhaps even kill — human beings.

The press release concerned a planned holiday party by Forest Laboratories to be held December 10, 2004. The press release noted that Animal Defense League – Long Island planned a protest outside the Hunting Towne House, where the holiday party was to be held.

The press release also republished what it claimed was a communique from the Animal Liberation Front that said (emphasis added),

Cancel the 12/10 Forest Labs party or syrup of ipecac and diarrhea inducing agents will appear in your catering provisions beginning Friday afternoon. We will target all town house events this weekend. All additives will be non-lethal and the symptoms non-permanent, however: will be very disruptive to town house functions. Cancel the Forest Labs party. *The A.L.F.*

Non-permanent? Spiking food with ipecac in this way could be potentially fatal.

Ipecac syrup used to be widely recommended in cases of accidental poisoning, especially among children, because it can induce vomiting. In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics reverse that recommendation, after studies showed ipecac was simply not effective and had a number of potential problems (mainly that it is sometimes abused by people with eating disorders).

Spiking food with ipecac would be extremely dangerous, because it would be impossible to control how much ipecac any given person was exposed to. Exposure to large doses of ipecac can cause respiratory difficulties, fast or irregular heartbeat, seizures and pneumonia. If, for some reason, the ipecac is not vomited, it can cause heart problems, permanent heart damage and even death.

There’s a reason ipecac is clearly labeled that it is not to be administered without first consulting a poison control center, emergency room or physician.

There is simply nothing you can spike food with that is not potentially hazardous and even deadly to some subpopulation of people. Apparently the possibility that someone might be seriously injured or even killed in such a stunt is simply not as important as the animals to the ALF or the North American Animal Liberation Press Office.

Non-violent my ass.

Source:

Animal Testing Firm to be Targeted on Long Island; Animal Liberation Front Issues Threat to Partygoers. Press Release, North American Animal Liberation Press Office, December 8, 2004.

Hudson Valley Foie Gras Prepares for Activists

The Hudson Valley Chronogram recently published an intriguing profile of Hudson Valley Foie Gras — billed as the world’s largest producer of foie gras. With California scheduled to ban foie gras production by 2012, putting Hudson Valley Foie Gras’ competitor Sonoma Foie Gras out of business, the focus of anti-foie gras efforts by animal rights activists will inevitably fall on this New York company.

According to the Chronogram, the business slaughters 2,000 ducks per week during normal operations and reaches upwards of 10,000 ducks per week during the Christmas holiday.

Hudson Valley was one of the foie gras farms featured in animal rights activist Sarahjane Blum’s 16-minute film, Delicacy of Despair, in which Blum trespassed at Hudson Valley and Sonoma Foie Gras. Chronogram reporter Susan Gibbs was surprisingly skeptical of the film going in, however, noting that,

The film is horrifying, and incredibly effective. But my many years in television news has taught me that selective editing can make a bad situation look a thousand times worse. To find out what was really going on at a foie gras farm, I would have to visit one.

If only more journalists were as skeptical of heavily edited animal rights video as Gibbs is. Fortunately, Hudson Valley proprietors Izzy Yanay and Michael Ginor agreed to allow Gibbs to tour their farm and the result is a profile that makes clear this is a slaughter operation, but one that doesn’t quite live up to Blum’s billing has a horror house.

For example, Gibbs comments on a common claim by activists — that the force fed ducks are often too fat to walk,

Blum had told me to be on the lookout for ducks so fat they were unable to walk. All of the ducks I saw walked. They were very fat and very dirty, a fact both Yanay and Blum said was due to a lack of sufficient water for preening. Several of the fattest ducks had green chalk marks on their necks designating them for the next day’s slaughter.

Gibbs also addresses the issue of ducks being accidentally killed in the forced feeding process,

Each of the farm’s 90 handlers is responsible for feeding 350 ducks three times a day. Spending one minute on each bird would make for a 17-and-a-half-hour workday, but most handlers work much faster. Activists claim that over-worked employees don’t have time to be careful with the ducks and sometimes kill them by overfeeding. Yanay denies the charged, pointing out that worker’s monthly bonuses are docked for each dead bird.

Blum’s short film featured shots of isolation cages at Hudson Valley. When Gibbs visited the farm, Yanay told her that, “That was an experiment. It didn’t work.” According to Yanay, the isolation cages have been discontinued. Blum, however, told Gibbs she doesn’t believe Yanay when he says the isolation cages are no longer being used.

Yanay defends foie gras as no more or less cruel than any other form of animal agriculture, and suggests that if activists do succeed in New York as they have in California, it won’t have much long-term impact on his business,

Okay. We are bad people. But what we do wrong is we kill them. We are a farm that produces a product. You see cute little babies coming out of the eggs. We grow them and feed them and then we have to kill them.

. . .

If production is banned in New York, we will take our business to China. We will kill the same number of ducks. No ducks have ever been spared by banning foie gras.

Source:

Fowl feast: Hudson Valley Foie Gras. Susan Gibbs, Chronogram (Hudson Valley), February 2005.

Bob Barker Gives More Money to Establish Animal Rights Law Programs

Bob Barker was busy in December endowing yet more animal rights law programs at major universities.

Barker gave $1 million each to both the Duke University School of Law and Columbia Law School to create animal rights law programs.

At Duke Law School, according to a press release,

The Barker fund will support teaching at Duke Law School in the growing field of animal rights law, including opportunities for students to work for course credit on cases involving compliance with state animal cruelty laws and other forms of animal rights advocacy. North Carolina is the only state that allows individuals and citizens’ organizations to seek injunctions against violators of the state’s animal cruelty laws.

At Columbia, according to the law school,

Mr. Barker’s gift will support current initiatives into animal rights law, as well as open up possibilities in which the Law School will draw on its wealth of resources and contacts to develop future endeavors.

During the 2005-06 academic year, for example, the gift will be used to enlist the services of David Wolfson ’93, a partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, to teach a class on animal rights. Mr. Wolfson represents, on a pro bono basis, groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. He also has published on animal rights law and has taught classes on the subject at several law schools.

There was also speculation that Barker may donate a similar amount to the University of Michigan Law School.

Sources:

Bob Barker awards Columbia Law School $1 million to support the study of animal rights. Press Release, Columbia Law School, December 2004.

TV Personality Bob Barker Donates to Duke Law School for Animal Rights Law Study. Press Release, Duke Law School, December 6, 2004.

Animal rights law program may expand. Laura Van Hyfte, The Michigan Daily, January 10, 2005.

Hunters vs. Animal Rights Groups

New York Post columnist Ken Moran hits the jackpot in the opening of a recent column,

For years, hunters quietly have helped the needy by donating part of their harvest to food banks throughout New York and the rest of the country.

On the other side of the coin, you have animal rights groups like PETA and HSUS who raise millions of dollars, most of which is spent on salaries for officers and publicity for their organizations.

You think?

Moran notes that over the past four years, two New York groups — the Venison Donation Coalition and SCI’s Sportsmen Against Hunger — have donated more than 250,000 pounds of venison that have been distributed through New York’s Food Bank network. That’s about 1 million servings of venison, according to Moran.

Of course animal rights activists are free to disagree. For example, I can imagine a PETA activist explaining that PETA’s video of half-naked women wrestling in tofu is a far, far better thing than feeding the hungry. And, given PETA’s ethical priorities, it would be hard to argue with that logic.

Source:

Hunters’ Venison Donations Hit 230 Million Meals. Ken Moran, New York Post, November 14, 2004.