ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS -- MAY 2004

LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITORIAL ON ANIMAL RIGHTS

The Friday, May 28, Los Angeles Times carried a heartening editorial.

For those who don't know, and because it can be confusing, I will give a little crash course on the various types of articles that appear on the editorial page: A column gives a journalist's opinion, an op-ed gives a guest expert's opinion, and an editorial gives the newspaper's official opinion. An editorial in a paper with the reputation of the Los Angeles Times is weighty.

The editorial headed "Packing Their Trunks" is based on the Detroit Zoo's decision to release its two elephants to sanctuary. The piece told us that "life in captivity is simply rough for elephants." But then, its reach went further:

"Lab rat by lab rat, animal rights groups are making a dent in public thinking. Thirty years ago, no one wondered whether zoo elephants were comfortable or happy. Now, homeopathic veterinarians have thriving practices. Consumers look for the 'No Animal Testing' label on products. People fret about the cramped pens in which veal calves are kept and, in recent months, about whether ducks whose livers are destined for foie gras are tortured in their overfeeding.

"Nearly four years ago, McDonald's demanded that its egg suppliers give laying hens 72 square inches of space (not luxurious, given that letter-sized paper has about 90 square inches). The success of such shows as Cirque du Soleil raises the notion that circuses can entertain without elephants, whose lives in circuses make those of zoo elephants look like pachyderm paradise."

Animal protection work can get discouraging. How wonderful to have the Los Angeles Times acknowledge that we are making a dent in public thinking. It is a start.

You can read the whole editorial on line at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-zoo28may28,1,1196042.story

It presents a great opportunity for appreciative letters to the editor, which might discuss any animal rights issue.

The Los Angeles Times takes letters at letters@latimes.com and tells us, "Letters should be brief (250 words or less) and are subject to condensation. They must include a full name (initials and pseudonyms will not be used) and a valid mailing address and telephone number. "


I send a huge thank you to activist Elaine Livesay-Fassel for making sure we saw this editorial.

SHAC ARRESTS

Seven animal rights activists associated with the Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty campaign have been arrested. The New York Times story (Thursday, May 27, pg B9) tells us,

"Seven animal rights advocates were arrested on Wednesday on charges of trying to disrupt the work of a New Jersey pharmaceutical testing company and threatening its employees and those of six companies doing business with it, the authorities said.

"Those arrested were identified by the authorities as two officials of an animal rights group, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, and five associates. From October 2001 to February of this year, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, recruited sympathizers online to vandalize property at the homes of employees of the pharmaceutical company, Huntingdon Life Sciences of East Millstone, near Princeton, and of the other companies, said Christopher J. Christie, the United States attorney for New Jersey.

"In its drug testing, Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British firm, mainly uses dogs, primates and rats, Mr. Christie said. He said all tests were required and approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

"He said the group posted, as part of the campaign, what it called the 'top 20 terror tactics'' to be used against companies and individuals, including invading offices, chaining gates shut, writing graffiti on cars and houses, flooding houses with garden hoses, smashing windows and sending defective e-mail messages in attempts to disrupt computers.

"In addition, he said, the group often posted on its Web site the names and ages of employees' spouses and children and the names of the children's schools and various athletic fields where they were scheduled to play.

"Mr. Christie denounced that tactic as among the group's most reprehensible."

Christie is quoted, "Their business, quite frankly, is thuggery and intimidation. Our goal is to remove uncivilized people from civilized society.''

Those arrested are named:  Kevin Kjonaas, (aka Kevin Jonas), Lauren Gazzola, Jacob Conroy, Darius Fullmer, John McGee, Andrew Stepanian, and Joshua Harper.

We learn, "The indictment accuses all seven suspects of engaging in a conspiracy to violate a federal law that bans terrorism against animal enterprises, Mr. Christie said. The charge carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine."

You can read the 'full story' on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/nyregion/27animal.html
I put 'full story' in quotes because the article does not tell the full story. Unfortunately, as is often the case when activists use harsh tactics, the media stories concentrate on the activities of the activists and not of the laboratory.

You will learn more about what the activists are protesting by visiting: http://www.shacamerica.net/

That website tells us, "HLS has been the subject of five undercover investigations exposing the horrendous animal cruelty and incompetence that goes on inside HLS. HLS employees have been exposed violently punching and shaking four-month-old beagle puppies, performing a necropsy (dissection) of a live monkey, transplanting a frozen pig's heart into a baboon, being drunk and taking drugs at work, falsifying scientific data, and breaking animal welfare laws. These investigations have resulted in HLS employees being convicted of animal cruelty, fined by the USDA and almost shut down by the UK government."

The site provides information about undercover campaigns and has a distressing photo gallery.

Video of the abuses referred to above can be viewed at:
http://www.shac.net/MERCHANDISE/videos.html

No matter how we feel about SHAC tactics, animal rights activists share the group's disgust at the laboratory that the group is trying to close down.  With letters to the editor can redress the lack of attention the paper gives to the issue. Letters appear in one of the most read sections of the paper. The story is in many papers across the country and presents an opportunity to spread the word about the horrors of the Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory in particular, or vivisection in general.
The New York Times takes letters at: letters@nytimes.com

If your local paper has carried the story and you have any trouble finding the address for a letter to the editor, don't hesitate to ask me for help.

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.

MAN SUES ATKINS EMPIRE FOR DAMAGE TO HEALTH

In the 1990s, vegetarian diets were gaining in popularity and Westerners were eating less meat. Then Dr Atkins released his updated diet revolution book, and in 2002, a story on the cover of New York Times Magazine, by science writer Gary Taubes, sent the Atkins book to the number one spot on the New York Times best-seller list. Tens of millions of Americans are said to have experimented with the Atkins diet. As it is centers on meat, cheese and eggs, it has given a huge boost to industries based on egregious cruelty to animals.

Early this year the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine leaked a report to the Wall Street Journal, detailing the poor state of Dr Atkin's heart when he was admitted to hospital after what was reported to be an accidental slip on the ice. The slip proved fatal. PCRM has been collecting information from people who have damaged their health by following the diet. The group is now behind a lawsuit against the Atkins empire.

A Thursday, May 27, New York Times headline reads:  "Dieter Sues Atkins Estate" (page A 23).

Marian Burros reports,
"A 53-year-old man sued the estate of Dr. Robert C. Atkins and the company that promotes his diet yesterday. The suit says following the Atkins diet for two years raised the man's cholesterol so much that his arteries became clogged and required a medical procedure to open them.

"The suit is apparently the first to involve the diet, the most prominent and controversial low-carbohydrate regimen and the one most associated with assertions that followers could eat all the red meat and saturated fat they wanted and still lose weight.

"The plaintiff, Jody Gorran, who is being assisted by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an advocacy group that supports a vegan diet, is seeking $28,000 in damages. Mr. Gorran said he was using the suit to tell other people about the dangers of the diet and to have its promoters include warnings in books, other products and Web sites."

We get details of Mr Gorran's change in health:
"Mr. Gorran, of Delray Beach, Fla., said that in 2001, when his weight crept up to 148 from 140 he turned to the diet, specifically, the 1999 edition of 'Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution.' After two months he said, his cholesterol shot from 146, well within the normal range, to 230, considered in the hazardous range.

"In October 2003, after three episodes of chest pain, doctors found that Mr. Gorran had a 99 percent blockage in a major artery and performed angioplasty and inserted a stent to keep it open. Before starting the diet, he said, tests showed that his arteries were clear."

Note: For those interested in learning what just a few weeks on a bad diet can do to one's health, I highly recommend the fun new hit documentary "Supersize Me."

You can read the full New York Times story on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/national/27atkins.html

It provides a wonderful opportunity for letters to the editor singing the praises of plant-based diets.

The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

AUSTRIA ENACTS GROUNDBREAKING ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWS

Big news from Europe in the world of animal rights: On Thursday, May 27, Austria adopted new animal rights laws. The story appears in many papers around the world. The Friday, May 28, San Francisco Chronicle has it on Page A2.

The story is headed, "Hooray for the Hens! Austria to let them run free."

The Associated Press story, by Willimam J. Kole, opens

"Hens will be free to run around barnyards, lions and tigers will vanish from circus acts, and Dobermans will sport what nature intended - floppy ears and longer tails - under a tough animal rights law adopted yesterday in Austria.

"The anticruelty law, one of Europe's harshest, will ban pet owners from cropping their dogs' ears or tails, force farmers to uncage their chickens, and ensure that puppies and kittens no longer swelter in pet shop windows.

"Violators will be subject to fines of $2,420, and in cases of extreme cruelty could be fined up to $18,160 and have their animals seized by the authorities.

"Lawmakers, some holding stuffed toy animals, voted unanimously to enact the law, which takes effect in January and will be phased in over several years. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said Austria was sending a stern message to the rest of Europe and the world about respecting animals."

Let us hope the rest of the world gets the message.

The Chronicle website has a slightly different version of the story at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/27/international1133EDT0557.DTL 

But since it is an Associate Press story, identical versions (except for the heading) appear on other websites. For example, you'll find the version that appears in the hard copy of the San Francisco Chronicle on the Tucson Citizen website at:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=national&story_id=052804b1_austria_animalrig

The story provides a great opportunity for letters to the editor in favor of animal rights.

The San Francisco Chronicle takes letters at: letters@sfchronicle.com  and suggests, "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication."

The Tucson Citizen takes letters at: letters@tucsoncitizen.com
 

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.

WASHINGTON POST ON MATTHEW SCULLY

There is a thoughtful write-up about Matthew Scully, author of "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" in the Monday, May 24, Washington Post. (Page A21). It is headed, "Bush Speechwriter Emerges As Animal Welfare Advocate."

Shankar Vedantam tells us that Scully thinks animal welfare should be a non partisan issue, even a central issue for religious conservatives:

"In interviews, Scully, 45, said animal welfare is a nonpartisan issue. Everyone, he said, can agree it is wrong to inflict needless cruelty on animals for profit and to use wildlife and farm animals as "resources" no different from wood and steel.  Such cruelties exist because ordinary people ignore where the meat they eat comes from, Scully said. People who love animals such as dolphins and elephants are uninterested in the lives of chickens and hogs. But people -- Scully calls them 'moral actors' -- can alter the workings of the free market by making choices about what kind of meat they buy, or whether they eat meat at all."

The article presents a little information about the lives of farmed animals:

"Scully, a vegetarian for 30 years, talked about individual responsibility when discussing a hog farm he saw in North Carolina where pigs spend entire lives in narrow crates."

With regard to Scully's relationship with the animal unfriendly Bush administration Vedantam writes:

"Scully said he holds his bosses in high personal regard and points out that his views align closely with theirs on other 'compassionate conservative' issues.

Gary Francione, a law professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, is quoted. His comments offer some valuable information as he talks about the environmental disaster of meat-based agriculture and suggests that the grain fed to US farmed animals could provide every person on Earth with two loaves of bread a day.

Then there are Francione quotes criticizing Scully's stance, such as: "He's saying let rich people eat meat and poor people eat tofu."
I have read Dominion, and have listened to Scully when I interviewed him on KPFT, speak eloquently about his reasons for being vegan. I find it hard to reconcile what I learned of Scully's position with Francione's interpretation of what he calls Scully's "obnoxious" argument.

For those who want to judge for themselves, I have a DawnWatch link to the place you can purchase Dominion on Amazon. It is high on my 'recommended reading' list as it is exquisitely written and offers superb information. It is a particularly good gift for Christian or right wing friends or family members: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312261470/dawnwatch/
If you click on the book link on that page you will get to both the hard cover and paperback editions.

The Washington Post article gives us a great opportunity for letters to the editor on any aspect of animal welfare or animal rights.

The Post takes letters at: letters@washpost.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

HORSE SLAUGHTER LETTERS IN USA TODAY 

I rarely send out letters that appear in papers regarding articles about which I had sent out an alert, for fear of flooding mailboxes. Thankfully, I almost always see letters from animal advocates following a major article, often from people whose names I recognize, and feel immensely grateful. Today, I make an exception and share a couple of letters that appeared in USA Today following the anti horse slaughter op-ed, because they appear in the largest paper in the country and so perfectly exemplify how animal advocates can use articles as jumping off points to further the broader message.

In the first, Shaun Arsenault draws attention to abuse that would not be well known to the general public: He makes it clear that the racing industry causes the very problems that some "clear up" using the horror that is horse slaughter, now being protested by some in that industry. In the second, activist Cheryl Kucsera, who has dozens of letter to the editor published every year, makes it clear that it is not only horses who suffer horribly when slaughtered.

The third, from an "anti," supports (ironically) the first. It reminds us that we need to be looking at the core issues.

I share these letters to offer encouragement. Please remember that a paper is likely to publish at least one or two letters on a topic about which it receives many. (The exception being if the letters look at all similar and therefore look to be part of a campaign.) So even if your letter is not published, your having sent it makes it more likely that somebody's on the same issue will get published -- your efforts are valuable.

USA TODAY

May 20, 2004, Thursday,

NEWS; Pg. 12A

Extend outrage to horse racing

Nick Zito's hypocritical appeal to end the slaughter of horses in the United States is absurd, to say the least ("Horse meat for dinner? It's enough to make one gag," The Forum, May 13).

Issued during the heart of the horse-racing season, Zito's commentary appears to point the blame for thousands of horses' deaths at the palates of European and Asian diners instead of at the real culprits: horse owners and trainers such as himself.

Supported by a multimillion-dollar gambling industry, horse racing is a cruel and exploitative sport that, more often than not, sends its prizewinning thoroughbreds to their graves. According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), each year about 800 thoroughbreds in North America are killed due to injuries. In some cases, horses are forced to race despite injuries. Some horses have been given performance-enhancing drugs, many of which are illegal.

If one takes into account horse racing's rigorous schedule and arduous training and some horses' deplorable living conditions, then he or she can see why Zito's argument might not be taken seriously.

Instead of honoring their champions, racehorse owners may put their horses out to pasture by selling them to slaughterhouses -- squeezing every penny out of their investment -- and begin the search for their next multimillion-dollar winner.

If horse trainers such as Zito are so concerned for the welfare of the animals they abuse, perhaps they would listen to the advice spewing right from the horse's mouth.

Shaun Arsenault

Goose Creek, S.C.

Go vegetarian

I applaud Nick Zito for speaking out against the slaughter of horses for human consumption.

While most Americans share his view, how many see the hypocrisy of objecting to the slaughter of certain animals -- such as horses, cats and dogs -- while eating the flesh of others, such as cows, chickens and pigs?

Slaughter is every bit as cruel for farm animals as it is for horses. All animals -- not just horses -- experience immense suffering and unimaginable horror at the slaughterhouse, as well as during transport.

The only difference between the animals people eat and those we view as companions is the way we feel about them. The animals aren't different; the difference is in how we perceive them.

When it comes to what you consume, if you want to choose kindness, go vegetarian.

Cheryl Kucsera

Silver Spring, Md.

What's the alternative?

Nick Zito argues that "this country can't allow the destruction of horses . . . for food export" and notes that Congress has proposed measures to end the slaughter of horses for food.

What alternative end does Zito suggest for the "more than 50,000 horses" that are unwanted and currently being slaughtered every year? Should horse owners be made to euthanize old, injured and sick animals, then bury them in an equine cemetery, cremate them or dump them in a landfill?

I do not know of any organization, individual or government program that can support this number of horses for the remainder of their lives, which can be upward of 25 years.

Rather than ban the slaughter of horses, more reasonable legislation could be made to see that the animals are transported humanely and ensure that the horses meet their deaths as painlessly as possible.

Marla Gold

Madison, N.C.

NEW YORK TIMES -- 'MEATLESS NOT JOYLESS'

There is wonderfully veg-friendly article on the front page of the Dining section of the Wednesday, May 19, New York Times (pg F1) headed, "Meatless, Not Joyless." It is by Mark Bittman.

He opens,
"I made dinner the other night for five, two of them vegetarians, and while shopping I realized how often such a situation now arises. Vegetarianism, common to most of the world but still regarded skeptically by staunchly carnivorous Americans, has made significant inroads into the national culture, and it is increasingly making itself felt at American tables.

"Vegetarians coming to dinner? I complained about this prospect for nearly 30 years. Now I was champing at the bit of opportunity."

He writes a little about the wealth of choices of dishes from different countries where the diets are not meat laden. Then he spells out some of the reasons for being vegetarian:

"When I hear the term ''vegetarian lifestyle,'' I reach for my skirt steak. But the arguments for eating vegetarian food, if not daily then at least regularly, are quite compelling, even to lifelong omnivores like myself. I am no preacher, and I will be grilling meat tonight, but consider the following:

* The livestock population of the United States eats well enough to feed the world's human population several times over.

* Raising animals for food has caused extensive environmental damage not only to equatorial rain forests but to North American prairies.

* Using increasingly limited resources to produce meat sometimes sounds just dumb. (My favorite statistic: it takes dozens of gallons of water to grow a pound of wheat and thousands to raise a pound of meat.)

* And finally, a terrifying little fact: 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States are used to treat healthy livestock. I won't even mention mad cow disease."

He suggests that you can eat less meat without becoming a "converted, proselytizing vegetarian." And having noted that only about 3% of Americans are vegetarian, he shares this encouraging statistic: "It appears, though the statistics vary wildly, that somewhere between 10 and 25 percent of Americans under 30 eschew meat."

Bittman shares seven vegetarian recipes, six of which are vegan.

USA TODAY OP-ED AGAINST HORSE SLAUGHTER

The Thursday, March 13 edition of USA Today has an opinion piece headed, "Horse meat for dinner? It's enough to make one gag."

(Some of us would say that about any meat.)

It is written by Nick Zito. The blurb about him, at the bottom of the article, says "Nick Zito is a two-time Kentucky Derby-winning trainer (Strike the Gold and Go for Gin) who also trains The Cliff's Edge and Sir Shackelton. Both will run in the Preakness on Saturday. Zito is a member of the National Horse Protection Coalition."

He tells us that Ferdinand, the 1986 Kentucky Derby champion ended up in a Japanese slaughterhouse and that "The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that every year, more than 50,000 horses are slaughtered for food in this country." He points out, "Foreign-owned slaughterhouses cart them in, butcher them and ship the meat overseas to Asia and Europe. This is not done for famine relief or directed toward the poverty-stricken. Rather, horse meat is a delicacy in these destinations."

Zito tells us about the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act: "I'm grateful that horse meat would trigger the gag reflex in most Americans. The thought of horse slaughter should trigger a similar reflex in U.S. lawmakers. The House of Representatives last fall moved to end horse slaughter for food. And just last week, in the wake of the Kentucky Derby, the Senate introduced similar legislation that would include a ban on shipments of these doomed horses to Canada and Mexico."

You can find out more about the act and what you can do to support it at:

http://www.saplonline.org/horses.htm 

Indeed, I suspect most Americans are appalled at the idea of horse slaughter. So I hope animal advocates will take the opportunity presented by this op-ed to write letters appreciative but bringing up other issues, for example:

A) Questioning the slaughter of other animals in a country where we have no shortage of nourishing food choices that don't involve killing anybody.

B) Examining not just the end to which racing horses come, but the sport itself, and the use of members of other species for human entertainment. As Bill Maher has said, "“Horses were not meant to serve as gambling icons.”

PETA has a terrific fact sheet on the issue at:  http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=65 

You can read Zito's full piece at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-12-zito_x.htm 

USA Today takes letters at http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18 

Select "Letter to the editor" from the pulldown menu.

NOTE: Watchdog will look at this issue on Monday, May 17, 2pm Pacific -- Watchdog is an animal issues show that airs on KPFK, 90.7 FM in Los Angeles and San Diego and 98.7 in Santa Barbara, and streams globally on the web at http://www.kpfk.org/ . The show will be archived by Monday night at: http://www.DawnWatch.com/Watchdog.htm 

EGG INDUSTRY ORDERED TO QUIT ANIMAL CARE CERTIFIED LABEL

The DC based group Compassion Over Killing has won a battle against the United Egg Producers. The fight is detailed on the website http://www.eggscam.com where you can see photos of the abhorrent conditions under which egg-laying hens whose eggs have been stamped "animal care certified" have been living, and sometimes dying, in their cages.

The Better Business Bureau ruled in favor of a complaint brought by COK. A May 10 Associated Press story on the issue has appeared on many major media websites and has been printed in some papers such as the Kansas City Star and the Miami Herald (see below).
The following link will show you websites where the story has appeared: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=ascii&q=%22animal+care+certified%22&btnG=Search+News&filter=0 or http://tinyurl.com/yru4f

The MSNBC version of the AP story seems to be the most comprehensive. It is headed, "Business Group Shells Egg-Industry Ads
Better Business Bureau Disputes Humane Claim."

It opens:
"The egg industry should stop advertising its products as humane as long as it continues such practices as clipping hens' beaks and depriving birds of food and water, according to a ruling issued Monday by the Better Business Bureau.
The ruling comes from the bureau's New York-based National Advertising Review Board, its highest authority on advertising issues. The board recommended that the United Egg Producers either discontinue labeling eggs as 'animal care certified,' or significantly alter it to stop misleading consumers."

Later it gives some details about the conditions that influenced the ruling:

"While the BBB found that the egg industry's standards have improved treatment of hens, it's not to a level that most consumers would find humane.  Among the practices cited were forced molting, which is intentionally withholding food and water to make birds lose weight; partial beak clipping, without anesthesia, to prevent birds from pecking each other; and dense crowding of hens in cages that don't allow them to flap their wings or turn around."

You can read the full article on line at:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4951194/

In print, the story appeared in:
The Wednesday, March 12, Kansas City Star, on page C3, under the heading: "Egg logo to be revised."
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/8643519.htm
The Kansas City Star takes letters at: letters@kcstar.com

And in the Wednesday, May 12, Miami Herald, page C3, in the Business Briefs section.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/8641485.htm?1c
The Miami Herald takes letters at: HeraldEd@herald.com  or http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/contact_us/feedback_np1/


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.

LOS ANGELES TIMES ON SUCCESSFUL FIGHT AGAINST BULLFIGHTS IN CHINA

The front page of the Tuesday, May 11, Los Angeles Times carries encouraging International news about animal rights in China. The story, by Mark Magnier, is headed, "Ole? No Way, Say Chinese;  Promoters were sure bullfighting would be a big hit. Instead, they ran headlong into Beijing's budding animal rights movement."

We learn that promoters had planned to bring bullfighting to China but "in a country known for its often-brutal treatment of animals and its anything-goes capitalism, a public outcry halted the project in its tracks."

It gives some details on the animal rights protest:
"Media reports cited plans to bring Spanish bullfighters to China so the Chinese could learn the trade. European and American bulls would be imported with the option of replacing them with local animals later.

"As word spread, however, animal rights groups kicked into gear. They wrote articles, pressured lawmakers and held seminars. They marshaled counter-arguments. They appealed to Chinese civility. They persuaded National People's Congress representatives, who added their voices to the howls of protest coming from nongovernmental groups across China."

The article tells us that "treatment of animals in China still leaves a lot to be desired....But animal rights groups say they're impressed by how fast the attitudes of average Chinese are changing." Yet further down, we read  "And despite emerging sympathy for animal rights, there's anecdotal evidence that Chinese bullfighting would have pulled in the crowds." So one might wonder how fast the attitudes of the people are changing, and how much the animal rights movement's ability to organize and conduct an effective campaign has changed. Perhaps a bit of both.

At the end of the article we have evidence of the Chinese treatment of animals still leaving "a lot to be desired":
"Even as animal rights activists say they're pleasantly surprised by rapid change in China in recent years, they quickly point to the work ahead educating people. In fact, the wildlife park dropped its bullfighting plans but continued to promote a more modest blood sport for the amusement of visitors in another corner of the park. Just outside the scaffold-shrouded stadium, a billboard advertised rides on a 'mobile feeding cage.' For $3.80 per bird, visitors can feed live chickens to lions and tigers from the chain-link-enclosed flatbed of a truck."

You can read the whole article on line at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nobull11may11,1,5081050.story?coll=la-home-world

It presents a great opportunity for animal friendly letters to the editor. You might address bullfighting, or the abusive ways in which we use animals for entertainment in this country, or even the suffering of animals in arenas less showy but just as cruel as bullfighting -- on factory farms and in laboratories.

The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE ON BULLFIGHTING

The Tuesday, May 4, International Herald Tribune, carried a lengthy piece on bullfighting, headed: "Surviving the bull market to die in the ring." (Sport, page 20.)

Christopher Clarey's article centers around the breeding of bulls for fights.

He provides an update on the vote to ban bullfighting in Barcelona:

"Last month, Barcelona's city council declared itself against the practice of bullfighting in response to a petition signed by 240,000 people, including animal-rights supporters from dozens of other countries. The council's vote was nonbinding. For bullfighting to be banned in Barcelona, it must be banned by the region of Catalonia, whose autonomous government has now formed a committee to study the issue.
Committees have been known to take their time here and elsewhere, and pro-bullfighting organizations are feverishly collecting thousands of signatures of their own...."

While questioning the idea that bullfights are actually fights, he presents the argument that bullfighting is an art:

"Those who appreciate bullfights here do not view them as fights. A fight, in theory, needs to be fair, but what's fair about a spectacle where the same class of combatant always pays the ultimate price? No, to bullfight fans, the corrida is a dance, a form of expression of elemental emotions and verities, and though the bull does suffer, sometimes horribly, it is not the suffering that gets the big applause."

We learn that those who breed "fighting" bulls might test them to see how they react when pressured, but never with bullfighters, capes or muletas:
"A bull's first fight is expected to be in the ring where he dies. If he fights a man before then, he learns enough to become too dangerous."

And we learn that bulls selected to fight, who will die  prolonged and torturous deaths in the arena, are basically gentle animals. We also learn that they will enjoy a life beforehand far better than the vast majority of other animals bred for food. The breeder, Astolfi, says the bulls are afraid of people. In answer to the question "So why do they attack in the bullring?" he explains:

"They don't attack. They defend themselves. When they are alone in the ring, they feel threatened, and they are bred to fight in those situations. But in general, their life in the countryside is very peaceful. You have to keep in mind that these bulls live very well from the time they are born until the day they die. It's something that cattle, bred for their meat, don't get the pleasure of experiencing. They don't get to live in an environment like this."

You can read the whole article on line at:

http://www.iht.com/articles/518052.html

It presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor, not just against bullfighting, but perhaps questioning the way we treat bovines, and, in fact, all members of other species.

The International Herald Tribune takes letters at: letters@iht.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

LOS ANGELES TIMES ON FOIE GRAS BILL

There is an unfortunate article about the foie gras bill, in the Food section of the Wednesday, May 5, Los Angeles Times (Pg F11). It is headed, "They're quacking up the wrong tree." It is particularly unfortunate as the Los Angeles Times has given so little coverage to this issue.

 David Shaw opens with:
 "Well, I see the animal rights activists are barking and braying anew. And this time, they've won at least a temporary victory in their frenzied efforts to turn us all into broccoli-nibbling, kale-chomping vegans.

"Last week, a committee of the California Senate voted 4 to 3 to ban the sale of any foie gras produced by force-fed ducks -- a process the animal rights folks consider cruel in the extreme.

"I'd be surprised if the bill ultimately becomes law, but even if it does, it would not take effect for seven and a half years. That's supposed to give Sonoma Foie Gras, the only farm in the state that specializes in foie gras, time to retool its business.

"I sure hope everyone comes to his senses and the state abandons this ridiculous excursion into political correctness long before then.

"Animal rights activists oppose foie gras because they say the force-feeding of ducks to make their livers eight to 10 times the normal size amounts to torture.

"Oh, spare me."

He goes on to cite pro-industry experts who say that force feeding doesn't hurt the ducks, but also says it really shouldn't matter if it does:
"I mean, we're not talking about child abuse here. We're not even talking about pet abuse. There's a huge difference between pets and livestock. Pets are raised to be loved and cared for. Livestock is raised to be killed and eaten. The ducks in question are specifically bred and fed to yield foie gras."

You can read the whole article on line at:

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/shaw/la-fo-matters5may05,1,5179965.column

Activists might be tempted to give David Shaw "a piece of their minds" but educating Los Angeles Times readers, with letters to the editor, will help the animals a lot more. The site http://www.nofoiegras.org has lots of information, including horrifying photos and footage about foie gras, and also a page on what you can do to help on the anti foie gras bill at http://www.farmsanctuary.org/campaign/state_cafoie.htm. I urge Californians to get involved.

The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.com 

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.