|
| ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS
DECEMBER 2005
USA TODAY LUXURY HUNTING FLUFF PIECE -- 12/1/05 The Thursday, December 1, edition of USA Today has a huge fluff piece on hunting, by Edward Iwata, headed, "A-hunting we will go — after time at the spa." (Pg 1B) It is about luxury resorts that offer hunting and high-end hunting stores. Iwata writes: "After a decade-long dip in hunting and fishing license sales, the decline leveled off last year, when 56 million licenses were sold, reports the Fish and Wildlife Service. Many of those license holders are affluent baby boomers from their 40s to almost 60. Half of U.S. hunters have household incomes of $75,000 a year or more, the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association reports." It discusses great expenditure on lodging and gear and describes "destination" stores that "boast forest and waterfall displays, gun and archery ranges, museumlike dioramas of wildlife and huge aquariums." It singles out the market leader, Cabela's: "Customers drive hundreds of miles to shop at Cabela's 13 vast stores. Picture a Home Depot and Disneyland for hunters and anglers, where they can buy canoes and kayaks; antique rifles for $250,000; women's swimwear; and kids' snow parkas. There's even a $43,000 log cabin that outdoorsmen can assemble themselves." Iwata writes, "But hunting, fishing and shooting still face obstacles to their growth. Hunters face shrinking lands to hunt on, as cities and suburbs grow, and rural lands diminish. Many busy working parents and youths rarely find time to get outdoors." It is almost amusing that Iwata would equate getting outdoors with hunting. What about hiking, or kayaking, or just playing sport? He continues, "And on the political front, hunters still face attacks from anti-gun and animal-rights activists." He does not entertain the possibility that people might be losing interest in that kind of entertainment, and that young people are taking a different view of nature and animals. You can read the whole article on line at http://www.usatoday.com/money/2005-11-30-hunt-fish_x.htm The pro-hunting piece calls for some letters to the editor countering it. USA Today takes letters at http://tinyurl.com/cee7y HSUS has a strong fact sheet on hunting at http://tinyurl.com/9eas9
KIDS AND HUNTING ON CNN'S PAULA ZAHN NOW -- 12/1/05 On Thursday, December 2, Paula Zahn's show, hosted that evening by Miles O'Brien, covered the hunting industry's push to attract kids. I will paste the transcript below. Please thank the show for covering the issue, and include your thoughts on it. Paula Zahn takes comments at http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?11 PAULA ZAHN NOW Children and Guns; Tasers in Schools; Jury Recommends Death Penalty in Carlie Brucia Murder Case Aired December 1, 2005 - 20:00 ET
LAB ANIMAL VIOLATIONS IN WASHINGTON POST -- 12/2/05 The Friday, December 2, Washington Post has an article headed, "Lab Animal Violations Decried. Activists Urge NIH to Sanction University for Repeat Offense." (By Rick Weiss, Pg A.21) The serious topic is handled with some cutting irony. The article opens with: "'Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.' -- President Bush, 2002 "Concerned that the federal government may not be living up to President Bush's famous two-strikes-and-you're-out philosophy, animal rights activists are asking federal officials how many times a university needs to violate animal welfare regulations before it gets hit with some kind of punishment." We learn that undercover agents for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals managed to get hired twice in the last four years as animal laboratory technicians the University of North Carolina. We read: "The first instance produced embarrassing video footage taken by the employee (one clip showed a lab worker using scissors to cut the heads off of baby rats while saying: 'I don't put them to sleep. Maybe it's illegal, but it's easier.'). It led to a damning report from the federal Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. But no sanctions came down from that office, part of the National Institutes of Health, because by the end of that investigation OLAW had determined that the problems had been corrected." The second PETA investigator got more evidence, and a new investigation was opened. Weiss writes: "The recently released report of that second investigation is remarkable for its similarity to the first report, PETA activists note -- including its conclusion that no action needs to be taken because of reassurances that the university has again resolved the problems." Weiss quotes PETA investigator Kate Turlington who said PETA wondered: "Did they just cut and paste the old one or what?" A PETA letter to the National Institutes of Health is also quoted: "Surely it should not take a third PETA undercover investigation of UNC to convince NIH that its practice of taking federally funded research institutions at their word is ineffectual. UNC's repeated, chronic violations... spotlight the university's lack of respect for NIH authority, and it seems that NIH does not mind one bit." The NIH said that they prefer to "work with the institution" rather than in a punitive fashion. And we read: "Tony Waldrop, UNC's vice chancellor for research and development, said that many of the problems found in the second inspection were remnants of problems from earlier on, which were still in the process of being corrected" and that a follow-up inspection resulted in "an absolute clean bill of health and full accreditation." Swain's last line is priceless: "Perhaps most important, UNC says it has updated its screening and background checks for new hires." You can read the whole piece, which has a little more detail, on line at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101510.html The horrors going on in the nation's laboratories rarely make the news. Please let the Washington Post know the coverage is appreciated. And include your own thoughts on vivisection. A good source of information is the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine website, www.PCRM.org 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."
TIME MAGAZINE AND USA TODAY ON PUPPY MILLS AND PAWS 12/5/05-- 12/12/05 Both the current Time Magazine (December 12 edition) and USA Today have articles on the Pet Animal Welfare Statute, or PAWS, a bill that would close a loophole in the law that allows puppy mills to avoid licensing and inspections by selling directly to the public. It requires all breeders who raise seven or more litters of dogs or cats each year to be licensed. You can find out more about the bill and send letters of support at https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_PAWS2 The Time Magazine piece, headed, "Curbing the Puppy Trade" (December 12, pg 62) discusses puppy mills: The exact number of puppy mills is not known, since offenders often fail to register their operations with the government, as required by law. But hundreds of violations are reported each year. The horrific conditions found in some mills can cause health and behavioral defects ranging from genetic problems caused by overbreeding, such as hip dysplasia, to overaggressive play." Josette Aramini, cofounder of "United Against Puppy Mills" is quoted: "Do they have to be confined to cages 24 hours a day, bred with no limit on the number of litters and no required socialization with other dogs or with humans?" Perhaps the most heartening part of the Time Magazine story is a box headed, "Here's how to make sure that your new puppy is happy and healthy." The first recommendation is, "SHOP AT A SHELTER. Local shelters frequently have purebred dogs, like this rescued miniature pinscher, left, and ensure that all animals have had their shots and were checked by a veterinarian." The full Time Magazine article is on line at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1137662,00.html The USA Today piece is headed, "Bill aims to regulate online pet sales." It talks of people who buy sick puppies on the Internet who "are left with awful choices: return the pet and possibly have it euthanized or pay thousands of dollars in veterinary bills." It explains, "Animal welfare groups say some large breeders, dubbed puppy mills, are exploiting animals and pet owners by using a loophole in federal law to avoid licensing and inspections by selling directly to the public. Now only breeders who sell at wholesale are subject to federal regulation. An unusual menagerie of animal welfare groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, and breed groups such as the American Kennel Club has united in support of legislation intended to plug the loophole." But it says, "Opponents — including many smaller breed groups, hunting dog enthusiasts and cat fanciers — say the problem the legislation is designed to remedy has been overblown. And the legislation is so poorly crafted, they argue, that it would virtually shut down small hobby breeders and animal rescue operations." The rescue question has been widely discussed on the Internet. The AKC website has a detailed area on the PAWS bill at http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/paws_QA.cfm?page=2 It explains: "This bill will not regulate any entity that does not intend to make a profit from the sale of dogs. Both existing legislation and PAWS define as 'dealers' only persons who sell dogs 'in commerce for compensation or profit.' Therefore non-profit rescue organizations are NOT covered by the legislation....True rescue organizations would be exempt because they are not selling dogs as a commercial activity. However, groups that call themselves 'rescue' operations, but that actually are conducting a business, will not be exempt. The USDA will have to write regulations to define when an operation is operating 'in commerce, for compensation or profit,' and as previously stated, AKC intends to work closely with the USDA and with members of Congress to assure appropriate implementing regulations. USDA does not have an interest in regulating non-profit rescue operations, and nothing in PAWS will require them to do so." You'll find the full article on line at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-04-online-pet-sales_x.htm Both articles present good opportunities for letters to the editor. You may write in favor of PAWS but please don't lose the opportunity to write in favor of adoption. Time Magazine particularly deserves acknowledgement for putting that recommendation at the top of its list. Time Magazine takes letters at letters@time.com Always include your full name, address and phone number when sending a letter to the editor. USA Today takes letters at http://tinyurl.com/cee7y
54 KILLED ON FIRST DAY OF NEW JERSEY BEAR HUNT - reported 12/6/05 New Jersey's bear hunt, which began yesterday, is in the news today, Tuesday, December 6. The New York Times article is headed, "Using Guns and Honey, Hunters Take Aim at New Jersey's Bear Population." (Pg B1.) The title refers to honey since the article describes a hunter who opened a can of honey and left it at the base of a tree. Then "as the sweet scent wafted through the frozen woods in Sussex County, he climbed a tree stand and waited for a bear to take the bait." We read that, "Environmental Protection officials said that 54 bears were killed as of 2:30 p.m. on Monday." The article mentions protestors: "Lynda Smith of the Bear Education and Resource Group, along with the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, were unsuccessful in their 11th-hour bid to block the hunt in the New Jersey Supreme Court last Friday. "The groups contended that the state's comprehensive black bear management plan was not scientifically sound. They also argued that the state has not done enough to educate the public on avoiding bears and to implement a program to distribute bear-proof garbage cans. '''This is not about bears, this is about garbage,' Ms. Smith said. 'Until we get our garbage under control there will continue to be a rise in nuisance complaints with or without bear hunts.''' You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/nyregion/06bear.html It includes a sorrowful close-up picture of a beautiful big dead bear in the back of a pick-up truck. The article presents a good opportunity for letters to the editor about the way we treat other species. The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com The Philadelphia Inquirer (Pg. B01) and Canada's Globe and Mail carry versions of the Associated Press article on the hunt. Both include the following lines: "Black bears, once near extinction in the state, are now a common sight, menacing people, scampering through yards and rummaging in trash. "'Bears are beautiful animals, but they've got to be controlled,' said Joe Giunta, 59, who bagged one Monday morning." Neither mention that no people have recently been harmed by those "menacing" bears whose numbers must be controlled. And they seem to accept that idea that going out and killing some random bears is somehow going to help control those specific bears breaking into people's garbage cans. The Philadelphia Inquirer story in on line at http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13336723.htm The Globe and Mail piece is at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051205.wbearz1205/BNStory/International/ The Inquirer takes letters at Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com The Globe and Mail takes letters at letters@GlobeAndMail.ca The piece in Newark's Star Ledger, headed "Hunters bag trophies on first day of bear hunt," describes a less than clean kill, where a bear was hit in the left side then "took off on a dead run," presumably in a lot of pain. The hunters caught up with him later. You can read that article, on line at: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1133849820159860.xml&coll=1 The Los Angeles Times has a few lines on the issue (pg A22) including the line about how the bears are menacing people. Many other papers also covered the issue in brief. If your local paper is one of them, that gives you a nice opportunity for letters to the editor about our treatment of other species. 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.
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS ON J CREW'S PLAN TO DROP FUR 12/11/05 With all the bad news about the fur fashion resurgence, it is great to share news about PETA's successful campaign against J Crew's use of fur, as reported in the Wednesday, December 7, San Jose Mercury News. You can send letters to letters@mercurynews.com And you might wish to mention J Crew's decision in letters to your local paper in response to any articles on fur or to the wealth of advertisements advertising it. You can learn more about the J Crew campaign and victory at http://furisdead.com/feat-jcrewvictory.asp And please thank J Crew at contactus@jcrew.com Here is the article: San Jose Mercury News (California) December 7, 2005 Wednesday J. Crew to stop fur sales; CLOTHING CHAIN MAKES MOVE IN WAKE OF COLORFUL PROTESTS Paul Rogers, Mercury News In the wake of a series of colorful anti-fur protests outside shopping malls and stores in San Jose and other cities around the nation, clothing chain J. Crew has announced it will stop selling fur. ``It was for business reasons,'' said Owen Blicksilver, a J. Crew spokesman. ``Fur was a very small part of the product line. Less than 1 percent of all products that J. Crew sells have any fur.'' The announcement was hailed as a victory by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the group that led the campaign. On Oct. 12, three women wearing flesh-colored leotards and tights lay in a pile on the sidewalk at the entrance to Westfield Shoppingtown Valley Fair in San Jose for an hour. They were covered with red paint to depict blood and surrounded by placards featuring anti-J. Crew messages and depicting skinned animals. Motorists honked and shoppers snapped photos. PETA staged similar protests in New York, Santa Monica and other cities after J. Crew included jackets and hats with coyote, rabbit and mink fur in its fall line. Many of J. Crew's competitors, including the Gap and Banana Republic, don't sell fur. PETA officials noted that some of J. Crew's fur-bearing garb is made in China. Their Web site features a graphic video shot by a German filmmaker in a south China market where cats and dogs are crammed in cages, thrown off trucks and subjected to broken limbs. Chinese fur sellers bludgeon and strangle dogs, cats and other animals with wire nooses, PETA says, then mislabel their products and sell it to American and European clothing companies as coyote, rabbit or fox. ``There's a world of suffering in every bit of fur trim,'' said Heather Mills McCartney, a PETA celebrity spokeswoman, said in a statement. ``But J. Crew has finally adopted a `no fur' policy that will save countless animals and send a strong message of compassion throughout the retail clothing community and beyond.'' (END OF MERCURY NEWS ARTICLE)
COVERAGE OF AUSTRALIA'S DECISION TO IMPORT ASIAN ELEPHANTS 12/7/05 Both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age have articles on the failure of an appeal attempting to block eight Thai elephants from coming to Australia. I will paste the articles below. Life in zoos is particularly rough on elephants, and the purchase from Thai exporters raises its own ethical issues, given the horrifying treatment to which baby elephants are subjected in the breaking process known as Phaajaan. Please visit www.HelpThaiElephants.com to learn more about it and to watch a shocking video. And please let readers of the Herald and Age know about the industry they support when visiting Thai elephants at the zoo. The Age takes letters at letters@theage.com.au The Sydney Morning Herald takes letters at letters@smh.com.au and advises, "All letters and email (no attachments) to the Herald must carry the sender's home address and day and evening telephone numbers for verification. Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words." You can read ABC's 7:30 Report coverage of the issue at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1526229.htm Unfortunately the animal advocacy position was presented only in a single quote from Rebecca Brans of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, who said, "We believe it's wrong because there's no conservation benefit with stocking Australian zoos with Asian elephants." It would be great if the show received some requests for more coverage, with some information on the issue and suggestions for more that would make persuasive interviewees. One of my first media jobs was at the 7:30 Report -- and one of my tasks was to go through the comments and submissions, make some phone calls, and put together good story ideas. The more information and contacts provided, the easier it was to follow up. And talking one of the reporters into watching the Phajaan footage could well inspire a story. The 7:30 Report suggests that you can "Have your say on current issues and events in the 7.30 Report Letters section." You can post to the letters section at http://www2b.abc.net.au/730/letters/guestbook/ You can be sure the producers keep an eye what is up there. Here are the newspaper articles: Sydney Morning Herald Wendy Frew Environment Reporter December 8, 2005 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/home-and-hosed-133-jumbos-cleared-for-takeoff/2005/12/07/1133829664211.html Photo pf young elephant being hosed down at http://tinyurl.com/9mnp6 Five Asian elephants could be winging their way to Taronga Zoo as early as Easter after an appeal by animal welfare groups to overturn approval to import the animals from Thailand failed. The long-running saga of the Taronga Five, as the one male and four female elephants have been dubbed, was close to resolution yesterday when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled, conditional on some improvements to the animals' enclosure, that the elephants could be flown from Thailand, where they have been in quarantine at Kanchanaburi, west of Bangkok, for 15 months. Taronga Zoo will be back at the tribunal on Friday next week to prove it has improved sleeping and "mud wallowing" facilities for the elephants, but the zoo's director, Guy Cooper, said the improvements could be made "for virtually no extra costs". The tribunal's decision was a blow for animal welfare groups that opposed the importation on the grounds that under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species it was illegal to import Asian elephants for exhibition. They described Taronga's plan, and a similar one by Melbourne Zoo to import three elephants, as a sham and a ruse for commercial purposes. The International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Humane Society International and the RSPCA said the elephants' welfare was their primary concern. "Ultimately, a win for us is improved conditions for the elephants," said Rebecca Brand of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. "Whether they come eventually or not, what is clear is that as a result of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Humane Society International and the RSPCA appealing this decision, the elephants are going to get greater conditions out of it." Taronga Zoo says it wants the elephants for educational and breeding purposes and plans to make them the stars of its $40 million Wild Asia rainforest exhibit in the heart of the zoo, complete with 200 new animals and more than 27,000 plants. "We had been confident all the way along that a favourable review would be achieved," Mr Cooper said. (END OF HERALD PIECE)
The Age Posted December 7, 2005 - 5:34PM Zoo-bound elephants clear imports hurdle Eight Asian elephants destined for zoos in Sydney and Melbourne will likely be allowed into the country following an Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ruling that importing them from Thailand won't breach any laws. However, the licence to import the endangered animals will be subject to a number of conditions to ensure their welfare, the tribunal said. Today's decision follows months of legal wrangling between the federal government and animal welfare groups. In July, the government approved the importation of the endangered elephants, which were raised in Thai camps, for a breeding and conservation program. Five of them were to go to a new $40 million purpose-built enclosure at Sydney's Taronga Zoo, and the other three to Melbourne Zoo. But animal welfare groups, labelling the importation illegal and cruel, called on the AAT to review the government's decision. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), RSPCA Australia and the Humane Society International (HSI) argued that national wildlife trade requirements had not been met, and that the zoos could not adequately provide for the elephants' behavioural and biological needs. However, the AAT today decided that the zoos were suitably equipped to care for the animals. "We have decided that the importation is not relevantly detrimental to the survival or recovery in nature of Asian elephants and we have decided that the importation will not contravene any relevant law," the tribunal ruled. "We have decided that the import licences should probably be granted although this will be on a number of conditions and we will need to be further satisfied by additional evidence." The elephants have spent more than a year in quarantine in Thailand
while their fate is debated. (END OF AGE ARTICLE)
RELEASE OF HAWTHORN ELEPHANTS TO SANCTUARY IN USA TODAY -- 12/8/05 There is great news in the Thursday, December 8 edition of USA Today. In an article, by Michael Hartigan, headed, "Company to send elephants to home with room to roam" (Pg 5A) we read: "After months of government negotiations to resolve charges of animal mistreatment, nine elephants from Illinois will pack their trunks and move to Tennessee. The Hawthorn Corp., a Richmond, Ill., company that rents elephants, lions and tigers to circuses, agreed last week to send the nine female elephants to the 2,700-acre Elephant Sanctuary in Hohenwald, Tenn., where they will live in a free-roaming environment.... We learn that "The animals are to arrive this month" and "Operators of the Elephant Sanctuary say they are pleased the herd will remain intact." The full article is on line at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-07-elephant_x.htm You can learn more about Carol Buckley's wonderful elephant sanctuary at www.Elephants.com . If you click on "Hawthorn Elephants" you'll see a picture of them chained in their Illinois barn. The photo of them indoors in chains presents a nice juxtaposition against the future life portrayed in the USA Today article: "After medical tests and quarantine, the nine elephants will have free run of the sanctuary's streams, forests and pond. To simulate the natural environment in the wild, the sanctuary will leave the elephants to feed and bathe on their own." The article offers us a nice opportunity for letters about the plight of wild animals in captivity. Good resources are www.SaveWildElephants.com and www.SaveZooElephants.com . USA Today takes letters at http://tinyurl.com/cee7y
OBITUARY OF VEGAN SOCIETY FOUNDER, DONALD WATSON, WHO DIED AT 95, IN LONDON'S TIMES -- 12/8/05 The Thursday, December 8, Times of London carries a warm and amusing obituary of Donald Watson, founder of the Vegan Society. I will paste it below. It provides a nice opportunity for quick letters to the editor from those enjoying the benefits of plant based diets. The Times takes letters at: letters@thetimes.co.uk Always include your full name, address and telephone number when sending a letter to the editor. The Times (London) December 8, 2005, Thursday FEATURES; Pg. 67 Donald Watson http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1914862,00.html Donald Watson, founder of veganism, was born on September 2, 1910. He died on November 16, 2005, aged 95. Founder of veganism whose dietary crusade grew to attract a quarter of a million adherents in Britain today Donald Watson survived to the age of 95; good propaganda in his campaign to convince the world that there is nothing inherently lethal about a vegan diet. He always regarded himself as a propagandist, in the term's non-pejorative sense. When interviewed at 92 he was pleased to report that he had lived thus far without resort to medication "either orthodox or fringe", and with hardly a day's illness. His parents were meat-eaters who did not enjoy particularly good health or long lives. His father, a headmaster who had worked his way up from being a farm boy, impressed on his son the importance of never swearing, which was helpful, Watson said, when spreading the word: "It annoys some people, and propagandists should not annoy anyone except with the truth of their message." While staying at the farm run by his much-loved Uncle George, Watson was shocked to see his uncle direct the slaughter of a pig. Its screams remained with him ever after. "I decided that farms -and uncles -had to be reassessed: the idyllic scene was nothing more than death row, where every creature's days were numbered." He became a vegetarian, but continued to worry about dairy and other animal products and the way in which their industries were linked to the slaughterhouses. He left school at 14, but failed to find a job as a woodworker in the Depression, so he trained as a woodwork teacher. When war came in 1939 he registered as a conscientious objector. His elder brother and younger sister later joined him as vegetarians and COs. All were teetotallers and non-smokers, causing Watson's mother to say that she felt like a hen that had hatched a clutch of duck eggs. Towards the end of the war, Watson formed a committee of "non-dairy vegetarians", who wanted to remove animal products entirely from their diet and initiate a new movement. He was keen to capitalise on the tuberculosis reported in Britain's dairy cows, and the scarcity of eggs. He laid out the first issue of his Vegan News in November 1944, over 12 typed and stapled sheets of A4. The word vegan he took from the front and back end of "vegetarian", expressing his belief that this new, absolutist diet was in fact the first impulse and the final destination of the vegetarian journey. He asked for other suggestions, and "dairyban", "vitan", "benevore", "sanivore" and "beaumangeur" were offered, but most of the 25 members were happiest with vegan. The early issues of the newssheet, written in Watson's straightforward but eloquent style, became the "Dead Sea scrolls" of veganism, the first warning to the faithful that: "We may be sure that should anything so much as a pimple ever appear to mar the beauty of our physical form, it will be entirely due in the eyes of the world to our own silly fault for not eating 'proper food'. Against such a pimple the great plagues of diseases now ravaging nearly all members of civilised society (who eat 'proper food') will pass unnoticed." Subscriptions rose rapidly, but his meagre resources limited the print run to 500. The Vegan Society's 25 members swelled steadily to the 5,000 of today. There are now an estimated 250,000 vegans in Britain. The American Vegan Society, and other international groups, cropped up without any prompting or help from Watson who, in later years, served the Vegan Society mainly as a source of inspiration. While other vegans, such as Alan Long, were willing to lambast lacto-vegetarians as co-conspirators of the dairy industry, Watson insisted that vegetarianism was an essential "staging post" to a true diet. Watson never set out to be a guru. When asked whether he condemned or condoned animal liberation groups, he always maintained that he simply could not make up his mind on them. He moved to Cumbria, where his one-acre vegetable patch was his main concern - always turned over with a fork instead of a spade to avoid killing worms. His wife predeceased him. He is survived by his daughter. (END OF TIMES OBIT)
CHANNEL 4 (UK) SERIES ON VIVISECTION: "TO KILL OR CURE" -- Dec 12-14 From the Channel 4 website: "KILL OR CURE? Mon 12 Dec - Wed 14 Dec 2005 Exploring the controversial issues behind animal research and testing. With a live webchat Mon 12 Dec, at 11pm, with Dr Simon Festing (head of the Research Defense Society) and John Curtin (animal rights activist)." "Animals Mon 12 Dec, 9pm-11pm Docu-drama following the fictional stories of a lab biologist and an animal rights activist. Followed at 11pm by a live webchat. "Monkey Love Tues 13 Dec, 9pm-10pm Documentary about the controversial American research psychologist, Harry Harlow (There is a photo gallery of Harry Harlow's experiments at http://www.channel4.com/more4/documentaries/gallery/index.html ) "The Devil's Challenge Wed 14 Dec, 9pm-10pm Will Dr Simon Festing change his mind about animal testing?" There are links to a lot more information, including clips from the upcoming series at: http://www.channel4.com/more4/event/K/killorcure/index.html At the bottom of that page there is a comment box: "Send us your
comments please. We want to know what you think of More4 programmes."
Please send comments.
NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE ON IN-VITRO MEAT, DOLPHIN TOOL USE AND PRIMATE BEHAVIOR EXPERIMENTS 12/11/05 The Sunday, December 11, New York Times Magazine included a fun section called "The 5th Annual Year in Ideas," which is a diary of the most noteworthy ideas of the past twelve months. Three of the pieces -- on dolphin use of tools, primate behavioral experiments, and the development of in-vitro meat -- are particularly relevant to animal advocates. In "Dolphin Culture," Aaron Retica explains: "Sometimes, when a dolphin in Shark Bay, off the coast of Western Australia, prepares to forage, she drops to the sea floor, rips a fat conical chunk of sea sponge out of it, covers her beak with the sponge cone and sets to work. After she finds the fish she wants, she drops the sponge. 'Sponging,' as the scientists at the Shark Bay Dolphin Research Project call this behavior, is an unusual instance of an animal using another animal as a tool, but that is not what makes the sponging interesting to biologists. It's that dolphins learn to use the sponges - to probe deeply for food while protecting their beaks - from their mothers." In other words this discovery chips away at the idea held by many scientists that other animals are controlled by instincts rather than thought and learning, and demonstrates ways in which we are fundamentally the same. The full piece is on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas1-14.html In a piece headed "Monkey Pay Per View" Alan Burdick describes experiments that show monkeys are willing to receive smaller squirts of cherry juice in order to view pictures of high status monkeys or sexy photos of female monkeys. You can read it on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas_section2-9.html Though the results are interesting, and the experiment is not one in which the monkeys appear to be abused (though monkeys are often kept extremely thirsty so that they will respond for juice rewards) it might make one wonder about the kinds of research for which we are willing to deprive other animals of their freedom. The piece "In Vitro Meat" by Raizel Robin tells us: "In July, scientists at the University of Maryland announced the development of bioengineering techniques that could be used to mass-produce a new food for public consumption: meat that is grown in incubators. The process works by taking stem cells from a biopsy of a live animal (or a piece of flesh from a slaughtered animal) and putting them in a three-dimensional growth medium - a sort of scaffolding made of proteins. Bathed in a nutritional mix of glucose, amino acids and minerals, the stem cells multiply and differentiate into muscle cells, which eventually form muscle fibers. Those fibers are then harvested for a minced-meat product." Robin suggests that if in vitro meat becomes viable, "the environmental and ethical consequences could be profound. The thought of beef grown in the lab may turn your stomach, but in vitro meat would avoid many of the downsides of factory farming, most notably pollution: in the United States, livestock produce 1.4 billion tons of waste each year." We might say that pollution is no more notable a downside of factory farming than animal cruelty. (See www.factoryfarming.com to learn more.) The piece does end by mentioning that if the idea takes off, "the meat industry would no longer be dependent on slaughtering animals." You'll find it at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas_section3-1.html All of the pieces cited above offer us opportunities for letters to the editor on human treatment of other animals -- as does the awful advertisement spread for "Coach" on the inside cover showing fur-lined boots and jackets. The Magazine takes letters at magazine@nytimes.com
and advises that all letters must include the writer's name, address and
daytime telephone number.
LARRY KING LIVE ON CHINA'S DOG AND CAT FUR INDUSTRY 12/11/05 The China dog and cat fur show on Larry King Live aired on Sunday night, December 11. Ryan Seacrest hosted and guests were Alec Baldwin, Heather Mills McCartney, Rick Swain from HSUS, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Congressman Jim Moran. You can read the full transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/11/lkl.01.html The show aired much of the hard-hitting footage many of us have already seen on the www.FurIsDead.com website. It included footage of crates full of dogs, with close-ups of their faces, dropped from the top of trucks to the road below, a German Shepherd being tied up just before his inner thigh is gashed and he is bled to death (the show chose not to air the cutting and bleeding ) and a scene I had not seen before: two cats clinging together, with their forearms around each other's bodies, cowering at the back of a crate that Rick Swain explains used to hold 15 cats. They had watched all the other cats pulled to the top of the crate by a noose around the neck and strangled there. We see one of the two pulled away as they frantically try to clutch each other. And there were descriptions of dogs being skinned alive and left to die over twenty minutes, though that footage was not shown. Unfortunately for about the first half of the show, various comments were made stressing that this was important because it was dogs and cats -- as if Possums or foxes being thrown from the top's of trucks or clinging to each other in terror wouldn't matter. And there was much discussion as to whether the American ban on dog and cat fur works. Rick Swain made it clear that there is certainly less being found here since the ban, but suggested there is still some. Since dog and cat fur is so cheap, and therefore a source of such high profits, it is not surprising the law gets broken. Finally, more than half-way through the show, Baldwin no longer seemed to be able to stomach the careful "lets not tell people they shouldn't be wearing fur" tone, and apologizing for being so worked up, said, "You look at the history of people who skinned animals and wore the skins of animals to protect themselves against the elements, because there were no synthetic fibers to accomplish that as we have now. There's no excuse to wear fur today, other than vanity. There is none. You can purchase synthetic products that will guard you against cold weather and will protect you against cold weather better than any animal skin can." He also said, "I think it would be unfortunate if people left this program thinking that this is something that is unique to the Chinese...this is just where that light has been cast now on this dog and cat fur issue coming from China. Here in this country in terms of meat production and poultry production and so forth, we have plenty of blame to go around for how cruelly we treat animals in terms of the food supply. And "In this society, what really resonates is the dog and cat issue... because many people have a dog and a cat.....It's unfortunate that it's taking the light off of the electrocution techniques that have been used on foxes and minks for years." At the end, when people were asked to sum up, and most made recommendations about how to try to avoid dog and cat fur, and how we should strengthen the laws, Baldwin said: "I think that rather than having people worry about dog and cat fur in less expensive fur items -- because as I said earlier, this issue about dog and cat fur importation from China takes the light off of the overall fur issue -- and rather than have it be just isolated to the dog and cat issue, I would encourage people, if you really want your conscience to be clean on this issue, don't buy any fur of any kind in any product at any price, ever, and then you won't have a problem." We can only hope that the confusion, terror and pain viewers saw on the faces of the dogs and cats might resonate with them in such a way that they would not want to contribute to that suffering of any animal and will develop the appropriate aversion to all fur products. The airing of such graphic footage on a show like Larry King Live was a huge step forward and should be commended. Please post a thank-you note on the Larry King Live website. You may wish to ask for more coverage of the topic, with a broader focus. Larry King Live takes comments at: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?12
60 MINUTES COVERS SHARK FINNING -- 12/11/05 On Sunday, December 11, 60 Minutes did a great piece they call, "Swimming with Sharks." It covered the danger to both humans and sharks of programs that encourage people to visit great whites from the safety of cages. Bait is used to attract the sharks, so sharks start to associate people with food. Shark attacks are way up in areas that provide this kind of tourist activity. And angry people are taking to shooting sharks. At the very end of the segment the horror of shark finning was covered as follows: "But, in fact, sharks have far more to fear from us humans and our industrial fishing fleets, which bring in 100 million sharks a year. In some regions, shark populations are down 90 percent, and some species are approaching extinction. "Why is this happening? "The answer boils down, literally, to soup. Shark fin soup. In China, it’s been an expensive status symbol for millennia. Chefs in the emperor’s court were once beheaded if they prepared it incorrectly. But these days, with China booming, more people can pay $100 for a bowl. Finning sharks is a billion-dollar business, and it’s not a pretty sight. "That’s because as soon as a shark is caught, his fins are cut off and he is thrown overboard, alive, to sink to the bottom and drown. In South Africa and a few other countries, it’s a crime to do that. But given the high price of soup, it’s a very common crime. "What’s a fin worth? A large one can cost thousands of dollars. And the black market in fins is tough to police because most of the sharks are caught in international waters where there’s no law against finning. "But on land, laws can be enforced. In Cape Town recently, authorities raided several processing plants owned by Hong Kong Chinese. Seven tons of fins were confiscated. "And after you’ve seen those fins laid out, have another look, as we did, at sharks doing what sharks do. At a cow shark, weaving through an underwater forest; at the perfect geometry and grace of a blue shark in cold, clear water. "It’s not the shark’s fault that we have demonized him for so long. Besides, we need our demons. They’ve been with us, in our minds, as long as gods. So the next time you’re in a Chinese restaurant and feel like some soup, why not stick to the egg drop, or the wonton. Give the shark a break." You can view the on line version of the story at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/06/60minutes/main1099368.shtml
Please thank 60 Minutes for the coverage of shark finning. Positive
feedback will encourage further animal friendly coverage. The show takes
comments at: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml
or 60m@cbsnews.com
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR FRONT PAGE ON CHICAGO'S PROPOSED FOIE GRAS BAN 12/13/05 The front page of the Tuesday December 13 edition of the well respected and internationally distributed Christian Science Monitor includes a story headed, "A ban on foie gras? Could this really be Chicago?" It discusses a proposed ban that would make Chicago the first American city to outlaw foie gras since California's ban won't take place until 2012. Alderman Joe Moore, who proposed the ban is quoted: "Our laws are a reflection of our society's values, and our culture does not condone the torture of small innocent animals.... It's not a matter of personal choice." Foie gras production is described: "The reason for all the fuss is the artificial fattening process used to produce the duck or goose liver: To get the desired richness, the birds are force-fed starting at 12 weeks, by metal tubes pushed down their throats. After two to four weeks of feeding, when their livers are up to 10 times the normal size, they're slaughtered." The article notes that Massachusetts, Oregon, New York, and the state of Illinois are all considering bans. However it does not point out that those bans would be on foie gras production whereas the Chicago ban being considered would, like California's ban, include sale, making it far more powerful. We read that a chef against the ban says that "after visiting foie-gras farms, he considers them more humane than many of the factory farms that produce chicken and pork." (See www.factoryfarming.com ) But "Activists say they're hardly condoning other factory-farming practices, but they see foie-gras production as both a particularly abhorrent example and a reachable target." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1213/p01s04-ussc.html It provides a great opportunity for anti foie gras, anti factory farming, or pro veggie letters to the editor. The Christian Science Monitor takes letters at http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4 You can get more information on the foie gras debate, including
shocking photos and footage, at www.nofoiegras.com
or www.Stopforcefeeding.com
NEW YORK TIMES AND CHICAGO SUN TIMES ON FOIE GRAS -- 12/14/05 Foie gras remains in the news today, in the New York Times, and in Chicago where its local future is being decided.
The New York Times article in the dining section is headed, "In Its Busy Season, Foie Gras Battles Its Image Problem." (Pg F 14) Unfortunately the photo included is of ducks and geese roaming grassy fields on a foie gras farm in France, which gives readers a skewed picture of the industry. Gruesome photos and footage of foie gras farms in the United States can be found at www.nofoiegras.com and www.stopforcefeeding.com The article discusses French foie gras farmer Joel Cabannes in glowing terms, referring to his boyishness and the care his family shows for the livestock. The article does tell us: "Farmers like Mr. Cabannes produce foie gras by a process called gavage: force-feeding grain to ducks or geese several times a day through a pipe that is inserted in their throats, causing their livers to grow many times their normal size within weeks. We read about anti foie gras laws "sweeping the world": "Moreover, a wave of new laws is sweeping the world banning the making, and sometimes the consumption, of foie gras. Two of France's biggest neighbors, Germany and Italy, have banned its production; the European Union has asked the industry to explore whether there are not more humane ways of producing foie gras. In September, Israel became the latest country to outlaw its manufacture, after its supreme court declared last year that it violated animal protection laws. Last year, California banned the production and sale of foie gras after 2012 and legislation regulating it has been introduced in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Oregon. But "Lobbying in Paris, the foie gras industry in October convinced the national assembly, the lower house of parliament, to declare foie gras a 'cultural and gastronomic patrimony protected in France' in an effort to shield it from the animal rights movement...The decree must still pass the senate, or upper house, where four senators from the Greens party have introduced a bill to block it." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/14/dining/14foie.html And you can keep the discussion alive with a letter to the editor at letters@nytimes.com As the foie gras debate heats up in Chicago, the Sun Times has an article and an op-ed on the issue in the Wednesday, December 14 edition. "Alderman trying to push foie gras ban through Council: A weakened Daley unlikely to get in the way, Moore says" (pg 24) opens: "Convinced that a corruption-weakened Mayor Daley won't waste his political capital to stop it, Ald. Joe Moore (49th) says he may call for a full City Council vote today to ban the controversial delicacy known as foie gras." We read that Chicago aldermen will receive "video that shows what Moore calls the 'torture' that geese and ducks are forced to endure while being force-fed to enlarge their livers to 10 times normal size. It'll show how a steel pipe is jammed down a bird's esophagus three times a day for a month -- to the point where the bird can barely walk, let alone breathe. The article refers to "full-page ads" run in Chicago papers. You can view the compelling advertisement at http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/foie_gras_chi_trib_11_05b.pdf The same paper includes the following strong letter from Gene Bauston, president of Farm Sanctuary and Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. Foie gras is irresponsible (Pg 68): "Farming occupies a venerable place in our culture. In years past, farmers reared animals for food while abiding by an ethic of humane treatment and care -- providing the animals with adequate space and giving them sufficient food and water to sustain their health. It is through this historical lens that we must examine the current debate over foie gras in Chicago. Groups such as Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States are united in supporting Ald. Joe Moore's foie gras proposal -- a measure that seeks to honor our humane farming tradition. "No responsible farmer would say it is appropriate or humane to force-feed and over-feed an animal so that his liver swells to 10 times the normal size. Yet, that is precisely what the production of foie gras entails. "The force-feeding process exacts a horrific toll on the birds, whose physical condition rapidly deteriorates, often leaving them scarcely able to stand, walk or even breathe comfortably. If the birds survive a month or more of force-feeding, they are slaughtered, their livers sold as a gourmet delicacy. After hearing testimony from experts describing the torturous force-feeding process, the Health Committee overwhelmingly passed Moore's proposal, which will soon be voted on by the full City Council. Chicago has the opportunity to associate itself with more than 15 countries that already prohibit the production or sale of foie gras due to animal welfare concerns." You can send letters to the editor in support of the ban at http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html
WHALE RESCUE ON FRONT PAGE OF SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE 12/16/05 There is a heartwarming article on the front page of the Friday, December 16, San Francisco Chronicle, headed "Daring rescue of whale off Farallones." It opens, "A humpback whale freed by divers from a tangle of crab trap lines near the Farallon Islands nudged its rescuers and flapped around in what marine experts said was a rare and remarkable encounter." We read that "The 45- to 50-foot female humpback, estimated to weigh 50 tons, was on the humpbacks' usual migratory route between the Northern California coast and Baja California when it became entangled in the nylon ropes that link crab pots." Rescuers evaluated the situation and "realized the only way to save the endangered leviathan was to dive into the water and cut the ropes." It was a very risky maneuver, according to the stranding manager of Marin's Marine Mammal Center, "because the mere flip of a humpback's massive tail can kill a man." Rescuers at first did not think they were going to be able to save the whale since "about 20 crab-pot ropes, which are 240 feet long with weights every 60 feet, were wrapped around the animal. Rope was wrapped at least four times around the tail, the back and the left front flipper, and there was a line in the whale's mouth. And "The crab pot lines were cinched so tight...that the rope was digging into the animal's blubber and leaving visible cuts. At least 12 crab traps, weighing 90 pounds each, hung off the whale, the divers said. The combined weight was pulling the whale downward, forcing it to struggle mightily to keep its blow- hole out of the water." But "Moskito and three other divers spent about an hour cutting the ropes with a special curved knife. The whale floated passively in the water the whole time, he said, giving off a strange kind of vibration. "'When I was cutting the line going through the mouth, its eye was there winking at me, watching me,' Moskito said. 'It was an epic moment of my life.' "When the whale realized it was free, it began swimming around in circles, according to the rescuers. Moskito said it swam to each diver, nuzzled him and then swam to the next one. "'It seemed kind of affectionate, like a dog that's happy to see you,' Moskito said. 'I never felt threatened. It was an amazing, unbelievable experience." You can read the whole article on line at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/14/HUMPY.TMP It opens the door for appreciative letters to the editor. You might like to take the opportunity to focus on some of our less admirable treatment of other species. The San Francisco Chronicle takes letter 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."
DOLPHIN MEAT AS BAIT COVERED IN THE AGE (AUSTRALIA) -- 12/20/05 The following article from The Age, on the use of dolphin meat to bait sharks, presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor about the thousands of dolphins killed every year in fishing nets, and in favor of plant-based diets. The Age takes letters at letters@theage.com.au and advises, "All letters and email (no attachments) to The Age must carry the sender's home address and day and evening phone numbers for verification and... Ideally, letters will be a maximum of 200 words."
Shark fishermen use dolphins as bait By Nassim Khadem, Canberra December 20, 2005 Indonesians fishing illegally off northern Australia have been using dolphin meat to bait shark, according to Aboriginal sea rangers. Customs officers this month arrested the crew of an Indonesian fishing boat spotted at Junction Bay, west of Maningrida in the Northern Territory. The boat, with a crew of seven, was hidden behind mangroves to escape detection by customs. Gavin Enever, a co-ordinator of the Bawaninga Djelk sea rangers, said the fishermen were using dolphin flesh as bait to catch shark. "We pulled up several hooks with dolphin meat in them," he said. "We also recovered 18 sharks and 30 other hooks baited with dolphin meat." Dolphins are protected by law and killing them can result in penalties, including a $110,000 fine and up to two years' jail. The practice has been used by illegal fishermen in the past, but only 10 have been reported and prosecuted in the past decade. Fisheries Minister Ian Macdonald said customs officials reported no evidence of dolphin meat on the boat. "I'm concerned about any of slaughter of dolphins whether it be for shark bait or anything else," he said. "If the rangers have photos that clearly show they (fishermen) did use dolphins as bait, it should be referred to customs because it is a serious additional offence." Mr Enever said the rangers were certain it was dolphin meat, and they were concerned it may be used commonly as bait. "They suspect this could be a practice they (illegal fishermen) are adopting, and if that is the case, there will be a lot of angry citizens in Maningrida," he said. Maningrida sea rangers, based 500 kilometres east of Darwin, regularly patrol the Arnhem Land coast by air, and have spotted 17 boats since April, leading to six arrests. Mr Enever said more arrests could have been made if the Federal Government funded the rangers and provided them with equipment and communications devices to liaise with customs officers. "Last Thursday was a well co-ordinated exercise and shows how much value the sea rangers can add to protecting Australia's coastline," he said. Senator Macdonald said he would meet the Maningrida sea rangers in the new year and consider a proposal from them. Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society spokeswoman Margi Prideaux said the Government needed to take the issue seriously and increase patrols. World Wildlife Fund oceans program leader Gilly Llewellyn said the use
of dolphin meat to bait shark was "just another worrying symptom of
the growing problem of illegal fishing".
USA TODAY ON 'HUMANE' DEER HUNTS --12/20/05 There is an unfortunate op-ed in the Tuesday December 20 edition of USA Today headed, "Why deer hunts can be humane" (Pg 13a) USA Today. Mary Zeiss Stange tells us about the nuisance that deer have become in various areas, but writes: "The deer are not 'wandering into' these sprawling developments. They were there first. And, at this point, they have nowhere else to go." Yet she rules out contraception as a viable option for controlling deer numbers because it so far did not work well in Princeton, and recommends hiring sharpshooters such as Tony DeNicola who says, "I do this every day. For me, it's like brushing my teeth." The only upside of the piece is that Stange describes the "capture-and-kill" method some towns have used, "in which baited deer are trapped in nets and killed with a metal bolt administered at point blank range to the head. It's the same device used in slaughterhouses" and writes, "One need not be an animal rights activist to be appalled by this way of dealing with 'nuisance deer.' Indeed, hunters have been among the most vocal critics." The terror of that method is presumably even worse for the deer than to be killed by sharpshooters. But one must ask why sharp shooting is considered an appropriate way to deal with inconvenient members of a gentle species who were there first. You can read the whole piece on line at http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-12-19-deer-hunting-edit_x.htm And you can send a letter to USA Today at http://asp.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18
CHICAGO TRIBUNE FRONT PAGE ON PUGGLES AND DESIGNER DOGS -- 12/20/05 The Tuesday, December 20, Chicago Tribune has a front page story on the popularity of puggles, crosses between pugs and beagles, headed "Designer dogs fetch a bundle." It includes some good points but unfortunately reads like an advertisement for "the breed." We learn that it is common to see them listed for sale from $900-1000, that they have surged in popularly, and that they live with celebrities such as Jake Gyllenhaal and James Gandolfini. The comments against their purchase come from Lainie Cantrell of the American Kennel Club -- probably because they are not AKC registered. She says that in trying to bring out the best traits in both breeds, you might end up with the worst. She is quoted: "It's really just a genetic crapshoot. The other problem is unscrupulous breeders capitalizing on a trend. They're just trying to pass out puppies to as many people as they possibly can." And we read: "If you want a mixed-breed pet, she said, you can go to a shelter and get a healthy dog for a small fee. Buying from a breeder or broker increases the chances that the puppy has been raised in poor conditions to save money and increase profits, she said." We also read about a bad experience, and the benefits of rescue: "Jenn Uhen of Chicago saw that firsthand when she bought her puggle Rhody about two years ago for $300. After taking her home, Uhen discovered the dog had parasites and kennel cough, and the seller refused to pay for the veterinarian bills. The dealer was keeping about 15 puppies in her back yard, Uhen said. If she had to do it all over again, she'd look for a dog at a shelter or a rescue organization, she said." But the article tells us that somebody else was attracted by "the hybrid's lack of health problems--not to mention its cuteness." The article unfortunately tells us that "Chicago animal-rights groups say they have no problem with designer dogs in principle but caution against giving a puppy as a gift." It then quotes an anti cruelty society spokesperson, and somebody from an animal welfare group. No animal rights group will condone breeding mutts while millions of them are exterminated in this country's shelters every year for lack of homes. You can read the article on line at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0512200310dec20,1,942485.story?coll=chi-homepagenews-utl and respond with a letter about the joys of adoption to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform
DAWNWATCH END OF YEAR ROUND-UP 2005 The year ends and 2006 begins on a promising note, as the January edition of "Scientific American" includes an article titled, "Protecting More than Animals -- Reduced animal suffering often has the unexpected benefit of yielding more rigorous safety tests." (Pg 84) The Scientific American editors chose to focus on that article in the "SA Perspectives" section at the front of the magazine. Their commentary notes, "for the sake of people and animals alike, the development and acceptance of animal substitutes deserve enthusiastic support." You can download a digital copy of the January edition, including the article in question and the editorial comment on it, from https://www.sciamdigital.com/registration_alt.cfm for a cost of $5. The January edition will be on newsstands shortly. You can send a letter to the editor to editors@sciam.com including your full name, address and phone number. This will be the last DawnWatch notice for 2005. I have just looked over the 650 or so alerts I sent out over the last year, to get a feel for the coverage. That number is a story in itself, since in 2004 I sent out less than 400 alerts and my criteria have been similar -- I send lead stories in leading papers or on national shows (with the hope that activists will monitor and respond to their local media.) But the increase in the coverage of animal issues has been enormous. Though media alone does not help the animals, if there is no attention paid to their plight, their plight will not change. Only when people are forced to face the cruelty inflicted by human society might they become uncomfortable enough to work for change. I therefore point to the increase in coverage with hope for a better future. Below I will outline a few of the year's major headlines, heartbreaks and highlights. If you would like a detailed look back, please visit the DawnWatch 2005 archives page, at http://www.dawnwatch.com/alerts-2005.htm Sadly, Richard Pryor is not alive to see the Scientific American article. In December the animals lost a great friend who spoke out against vivisection and supported militant like-minded groups and campaigns, such as the SHAC campaign. You'll find a nice tribute to Prior's work on behalf of the animals, by PETA's Lisa Lange, on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review website at: http://tinyurl.com/945bx This year the China dog and cat fur trade got its widest media exposure to date, as Larry King Live showed gruesome undercover footage and featured guest Alec Baldwin telling viewers that there is just no excuse for wearing fur. That kind of media coverage gives us some hope of sullying fur's glamorous image, even in a season where there seems to be an endless display of fur on what we have now learned are the appropriately named "catwalks" and in store windows. We got wonderful news, in December, that the abused Hawthorn elephants are finally being released to the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee. Detroit's zoo elephants, Wanda and Winky, reached sanctuary at PAWS, in Northern California, in April. Reading of their new life was a joy, especially when compared to stories of Maggie, the lone elephant in Alaska, who spends Alaska's endless winters in a small barn, desperate for companionship and exercise. Animal advocates continue to campaign for her release to sanctuary. This year, the Anchorage zoo's solution to her needs was to order her a treadmill. Pitbulls had a mixed year: In Denver, an outright ban meant terrific beloved dogs were pulled out of responsible homes and killed by the city. The stories were heartbreaking. In Ontario, Canada, a new law declared that all pitbulls must be spay/neutered -- spay-neuter laws generally being welcome news to animal advocates. But unfortunately the law also insisted pitbulls be muzzled regardless of their history or temperament. In California, however, dedicated activists helped draft legislation, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in October, whereby California cities are now allowed to put breeding restrictions on, and enforce spay/neuter of, those breeds, such as pitbulls, that are currently exterminated by the thousands in the city's pounds and are the most likely to be bred by those who abuse them. However the law specifically dictates that no breed may be declared vicious and/or banned. Therefore no existing dogs may be unfairly restricted and no loving families endangered. In September, the grass roots Washington DC based animal advocacy group "Compassion Over Killing" finally won its battle against United Egg Producers. The Federal Trade Commission ruled that the misleading "Animal Care Certified" labels stamped on more than 80% of egg cartons sold in the USA must be removed from all United Egg Producers cartons by March 31, 2006. You can see shocking photos of living conditions of hens whose eggs are being sold under that label at www.eggscam.com . Other promising news for hens this year was that both Wholefoods and Wild Oats pledged to sell only eggs from cage-free hens. However "cage-free" does not guarantee decent living conditions. As Chicago looks poised to become the first city to ban the sale of foie gras (the California law takes effect in 2012) the ducks, too, may be starting to make a little bit of progress. We saw vegan diets go mainstream in April, as on the hit series 'Judging Amy', Amy's teenage daughter went vegan. Viewers saw some concern, but ultimately acceptance, from her mother. And the popularity of Veggie Dogs in Ballparks made the front page of the Washington Times! ABC's Primetime exposed the link between the dolphin slaughter and entertainment industries. We saw footage from Japan of dolphins being rounded up and killed, and of dolphin trainers amongst them in the bloodied water, choosing the best looking young females for transfer to marine parks around the world. Militant animal rights activism also got much coverage this year, culminating in November, when CBS's 60 Minutes covered statements by California surgeon Dr Jerry Vlasak who said that scientists engaging in vivisection should be stopped “by any means necessary.” His comments shocked the overwhelmingly peaceful animal rights movement, many of whom feared that such rhetoric would hurt the cause. Some, however, argued that most social causes have had supporters willing to pursue their goals with violence. The year began with coverage of the Tsunami, and the animal disaster that ensued. That story was a precursor for August's Hurricane Katrina, the greatest single disaster ever faced by companion animals. An estimated 50,000 companion animals were abandoned in New Orleans and surrounding areas as people either chose or were forced, sometimes at gunpoint, to leave without them. Approximately 12,000 - 15,000 animals were rescued. The only upside of that tragedy is the wake-up call it gave America -- making clear that official policy is totally out of touch with how we feel about our nonhuman family members. As the year closes there is legislation before Congress, the Pets Evacuation and Transport Safety Act, designed to address that issue during disasters. The Katrina animal disaster was widely covered in the media as America and the world watched with shock and sometimes outrage as dogs starved on rooftops, or swam after boats, ignored by rescuers looking for humans. But there were people who risked their own health and welfare, who headed to the disaster area and pulled animals from roofs, toxic waters, and abandoned homes. Many of them are reading this newsletter. We all thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Many others sent money to help, and sent letters and made calls to the media, which various anchors acknowledged led to coverage of the animal disaster. Indeed the continuing increase in media attention to all animal issues is no doubt in some part due to the increased contact that you, who care about the animals, have had with the media. I sign off for 2005 with gratitude and love for a community that speaks for those who have no voice in our society, and with the hope that together we can make the coming years brighter for all. Yours and the animals', Karen Dawn
|
