|
ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS -- SEPTEMBER 2004
CALIFORNIA FOIE GRAS BILL BECOMES LAW I am currently traveling. My fellow travelers must have wondered about the woman who burst into tears as she downloaded her mail. Profound relief! On Wednesday, September 29, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that will ban, from the year 2012, the production and sale of foie gras in the world's fifth largest economy, the state of California. If the foie gras bill had made it through all four legislative steps only to be vetoed by the governor, the moral blow could have hampered future legislative efforts on behalf of farmed animals. But instead, its passage should pave the way for a national bill, since in the United States, it is only California and New York that produce foie gras, and New York already has a similar bill in the legislature. The San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times both carry the story -- though the Times carries it only as part of a larger story on bills the governor has signed and vetoed. The Chronicle story, (page B1) is headed, "Governor vetoes bills on offshoring jobs; Legislation bans foie gras starting in 2012." On the foie gras issue it tells us: "He also became the nation's first governor to approve a ban on the sale and production of foie gras, the hyper-fattened duck liver. "The foie gras bill, SB1520 by Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, will take effect in 2012 and ban the production and sale of the delicacy if produced by a controversial but standard method in which ducks and geese are overfed via a tube inserted down their throats. "The bill's chances appeared dim in August when Schwarzenegger told National Public Radio that the Legislature should be busying itself with more important matters. 'They are sitting there, and I am getting bills here about how to feed a goose,' he told NPR. "But the bill was carried by Burton, with whom Schwarzenegger confers regularly, and lobbied for by a host of Hollywood celebrities allied with animal-rights causes. "In a signing message, Schwarzenegger said the bill 'provides 7 1/2 years for agricultural husbandry practices to evolve and perfect a humane way for a duck to consume grain.' "Many chefs, however, have long held the age-old method is the only way to produce foie gras and said the governor's signature could have the practical effect of banishing the delicacy from the state's high-end restaurants. "This is way more anti-business than any of the other bills,' said Dan Scherotter, executive chef at San Francisco's Palio d'Asti and a member of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association's board of directors. Customers will 'fly to Vegas to eat it. People used to fly to San Francisco to do fine dining -- and they don't anymore.' "Guillermo Gonzalez, who runs the state's sole foie gras farm, said in a statement late Wednesday that 'we ... are excited to work with his administration on a long-term solution.' "But even animal rights activists doubted a different method could be found, and they lauded Schwarzenegger's move. "'We do not believe there is another way,' said Teri Barnato, national director of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. By 2012, she said, 'we hope ... consumers will be educated on the issue' enough to eliminate demand." Indeed, a legislative ban on a product, on grounds of egregious animal cruelty, will have a far greater impact than any education animal rights groups are able to offer. In the Los Angeles Times the foie gras bill information is buried in a story headed, "Governor Vetoes Port Smog Curbs; Environmentalists say big business wins out over clean air." (Page B1.) We learn that Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would limit air pollution. Then we read: "Schwarzenegger also weighed in on animal bills Wednesday, signing two measures that had been held up for ridicule as the type of 'silly bills' the governor has said should be eliminated: "He approved bans on the force-feeding of ducks and geese to fatten their livers for foie gras, making California the only state to have such a law. Passionately opposed by chefs, the bill was championed by animal rights activists, who enlisted Sen. John Burton (D-San Francisco) as sponsor of SB 1520. "Schwarzenegger noted that the ban -- which also would prohibit the sale of pate made through force-feeding -- does not kick in for another 7 1/2 years to give producers time to 'perfect a humane way for a duck to consume grain to increase the size of its liver through natural processes.' "If agricultural producers are successful in this endeavor,' he wrote, 'the ban on foie gras sales and production in California will not occur.'" That is the attitude that had some animal advocates worried enough about the bill to oppose it. But I think it points only to the governor's lack of knowledge about the process. One cannot humanely coax an animal to eat enough food for his liver to grow to ten times its normal size. Also, the rest of the world is turning against foie gras -- even French activists are working on getting it out of France. I know they have been keeping a close eye on the California developments and will be very encouraged by this news. As more and more countries ban foie gras, it seems very unlikely that the California ban will be revoked. The articles also tell us that AB1857, a bill making it a crime to declaw exotic cats or native wild cats was also signed, whereas a bill that would allow ferrets to be kept as pets was vetoed. The heartening news about force-feeding opens up a great opportunity for letters to the editor in favor, not only of the foie gras ban, but of more compassionate (plant-based) diets. We should take every press opportunity we are given to put in a good word for the animals, so I hope you will write. The San Francisco Chronicle takes letters at: letters@sfchronicle.com and recommends, "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication." 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.
FOIE GRAS BILL ON GOVERNOR'S DESK The foie gras bill is still sitting on the Governor's desk. After having made it through all four legislative steps, the prospect that it might not be signed (the governor derided it, as trivial, as it made its through the legislature) is disheartening. Those pushing the bill feel that published letters to the editor, from California citizens, which they could present to the Governor, could make a real difference. Legislators look to the letters pages as barometers of public opinion. We ask you, therefore, to please send letters about the bill to your local paper. You'll find loads of information about the bill at: Don't hesitate to ask me for help with finding the email address for a letter to the editor, or if you would like me to edit your letter -- everybody's writing improves with editing. Small papers publish a huge proportion of letters they receive, so your effort is well worth it. In larger papers, it is easiest to get a letter published when it refers to an article in a newspaper. You can use anything as a jump off point -- a dining review raving about the foie gras at a restaurant, for example. Sadly, California newspapers have been largely ignoring the bill itself. But I will paste below a brief piece in the Saturday, September 25, Contra Costa Times, to which you can respond. That paper has published a letter against the bill, and will surely publish at least one in support of it if it receives quite a few. So please write. The Contra Costa Times takes letters at: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/editorial/letters/ Also, the Napa News did a terrific story on it, on Sunday, September 26. For those worried about the phase-out period (which all animal agriculture bills submit to) it includes this enlightening line, "Restaurant owners say if the bill passes they will stop serving the dish, and it won't put them out of business -- they'll just miss it." You can read that article at: The Napa News takes letters at: napaopinion@napanews.com . Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Here is the Contra Costa Times piece: Contra Costa Times (California) September 25, 2004 Saturday Section F; Pg. 4 SIR PAUL SAYS GIVE GEESE A CHANCE: Sir Paul McCartney has written Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, asking him to terminate foie gras production in California, reports MSNBC.com. A bill outlawing the force-feeding of geese to produce the delicacy is on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk, and former Beatle McCartney, a member of VIVA, an animal-rights group pushing the bill, is hoping the governor will sign it. "Your signature could be the one that ends the suffering of these poor animals," McCartney wrote to the "Terminator" star in a letter dated Sept. 20. "I feel sure that your natural feelings of compassion will encourage you to sign this basic humane bill into law." No response yet from Schwarzenegger's camp.
NEW YORK NEWSDAY SERIES ON ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION The Sunday September 26 edition of New York's Newsday, one of the largest papers in the United States, has a huge and prominent article (pg A3) on the campaign against the experiments on baboons at Columbia. It is the first in a series on animal research. Sunday's article, by Bryn Nelson, is headed "Where pain can lead to progress; The deep divide over the merits of animal research rages on at a venerable New York medical institution." Nelson is clearly attempting some balance in his piece. Unfortunately, however, the experiments that much of the American public might find justifiable (we learn that according to a May Gallup poll, two thirds of the US public finds animal experimentation morally justifiable), those aimed at finding drugs that will prevent the brain damage caused by strokes, are discussed at the top of the article and in the most detail. Michel Ferin's experiments on "female rhesus macaques in a separate project studying how stress alters the menstrual cycle" are mentioned only briefly. There is a suggestion that "There should have been tranquilizers" used in those experiments. There is no question raised as to whether they should have been done at all; at least the terrible suffering of human females from PMS is not mentioned in an attempt to justify brain surgery on female fellow primates. The baboon experiments conducted by Dr. E. Sander Connolly are described in gruesome detail: "Experimentally inducing a stroke in a baboon is not for the faint of heart. According to Connolly's research protocol, it requires veterinary surgeons to clamp several major arteries that deliver blood-borne oxygen to the baboon's brain. To access those vessels, surgeons first anesthetize the baboon and remove its left eye, along with residual fat and muscles lining the eye socket. Then, using a high-speed drill, the surgeons remove bone segments forming the back of the socket. Finally, they remove two of the brain's outer coverings to reveal the inner arteries. "Connolly asked permission to induce strokes in 60 baboons by clamping their arteries for an hour. Thirty would receive one of three experimental drugs intravenously, including a derivative of Vitamin C called dehydroascorbic acid, and 30 would instead receive a placebo. Each baboon would be euthanized either three or 10 days later, and its brain examined to gauge the drug's effect." Newsday was unable to acquire the research protocol: "Columbia officials declined to make Connolly or his baboon research protocol available. Nor would the university confirm or deny the authenticity of a 15-page summary of Connolly's protocol that Newsday received from PETA, citing reasons of confidentiality. Dr. Catherine Dell'Orto, a former veterinary post-doctoral fellow at the university, said she could vouch for it, however." We learn about Dell'Orto: "Dell'Orto, now 35, arrived at Columbia's Institute of Comparative Medicine in July of 2001 with her doctorate in veterinary medicine from Mississippi State University and a view that animal research was a necessary evil. By then, Connolly had finished the first phase of his research with 23 baboons and begun the second phase with a new contingent. "Within weeks, Dell'Orto said, she had raised multiple objections with a senior veterinarian - that the baboons were receiving inadequate pain medication given the severity of the surgery, that they were receiving poor post-surgical care and being left to die in their cages. And, she contended, dogs and pigs in the facility were being mistreated as well." Also involved in the complaint is licensed veterinary technician Idalia Padilla-Weiss, who began working at Columbia in the summer of 2001: "With Dell'Orto, she shared an office and a belief that some of the lab animals were suffering needlessly. Some baboons and monkeys bit themselves repeatedly, Padilla-Weiss said. Others ate their feces or wouldn't eat at all. She blamed their behavior on stressful housing conditions and a lack of environmental enrichment, a view she said was not shared by her colleagues." Hoping to do a little to relieve the intense boredom of laboratory life, she attempted to acquire televisions for the macaques, who apparently love to watch Sesame Street, but she failed. There is a strong quote from her: "Everyone wants animal research. But if you are actually seeing these animals suffering and dying, you can't but help say to yourself, 'There's something wrong here.'" We learn that in response to a complaint, Dell'Orto received a letter from Dr. Harvey Colten, vice president and senior associate dean for translational research at Columbia, which noted substandard record keeping and confirmed "inadequate or questionable veterinary care to 11 of the 23 animals about which you expressed concerns, as well as to six puppies infected with scabies in an incident reported by another individual." Readers get some chilling information about the pictures scientists paint about their work: We learn that Connolly wrote, in an internal letter, "We completed a trial of a novel anti-oxidant compound (DHA) and were able to show that its efficacy in lower rodent models is not mirrored in primates." Nelson goes on: "The effectiveness of the Vitamin C derivative in protecting mice from stroke-related brain damage had not extended to the 23 baboons he studied. And so he requested permission to use 30 baboons to test a separate drug. Yet Connolly, quoted in a press release 10 weeks later, touted the drug's effectiveness in a mouse study and its potential 'to protect patients against the debilitating consequences of stroke,' but never mentioned its less promising results in his own baboon study." Finally we learn that PETA has "asked the New York County District Attorney's office to investigate and prosecute Connolly and 19 other Columbia-affiliated individuals, including most of the university's internal review board" and that the district attorney's office has confirmed the request and says it is "looking into it." Unfortunately the article makes much of the great successes of animal experimentation with regard to human health (and indeed there are some, particularly in the field of surgery) and nothing of the failures -- such as drugs released on the market, deemed safe after animal tests, that killed people. You'll find out more about the downside, for humans, of animal testing at http://www.CureDisease.com Also the article gives the impression of a close reign being held on animal research: "Every institution that conducts research on animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act must establish a review committee to ensure that each proposed experiment passes muster. Are animals the best way to tackle the research question? If so, what animals? How many? Will they feel pain or distress? If so, can they be treated? And, when necessary, killed in a humane way? Even after permission is granted, researchers must report back on their findings and ask for permission before embarking on the next phase." Sadly it fails to mention an influential factor -- the enormous financial gain that comes from government grants for the biomedical research the institutions approve. However, there is a strong quote from University of New Mexico bioethicist John Gluck: "In Europe to a degree, and especially in Great Britain, there's a point where animal concerns trump human need. In theory, there is no experiment in the United States, no matter how invasive, no matter how excruciating it is to the animal, that could not be approved on some level, if the argument is that the benefits seem to be sufficiently valuable." You can read the full article on line at: http://www.nynewsday.com/news/health/ny-hslab263984300sep26,0,5465844.story Though we would prefer an article, and series, that focused more on the cruel and wasteful experiments being conducted, Newsday is to be commended for giving the topic serious, somewhat even-handed, coverage. And whether or not you strongly believe the paper deserves commendation, you might consider offering some, since the series presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor and studies have shown that newspapers are far more likely to publish compliments, rather than criticisms, regarding their content. Your complimentary letter can spread an important message as you question the Columbia research and much of the current animal testing in the United States (and elsewhere). Newsday takes letters at: http://cf.newsday.com/newsdayemail/email.cfm As I was about to send this, the second article of the series, which will be in Monday's paper, was posted on the web. Monday's article is headed "Is animal research really necessary?" Again, it slants in favor of research, but provides some balance, as indicated by a quote from Barbara Orlans, founder of the Scientists Center for Animal Welfare and an affiliate at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, who finds the polarization regrettable. Nelson writes: "At the extremes, 'it's just a closed book,' she said, citing the 'ridiculous' allegation that all animal research is worthless, while also faulting the opposing view that 'it's wonderful, and we're lily white.'" You'll find the Monday, September 27, article at: http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsdivid0927,0,5638319.story The lead Sunday article is also available at a link on that page, as is another Sunday article, "Notions changing on the pain factor," which is well worth reading. Tuesday's "Using Mice in Research" should also be available there once it is released.
THE QUESTION OF ELEPHANTS IN ZOOS ON FRONT PAGE OF WASHINGTON POST For the second day in a row the Washington Post has an animal friendly story on the front page. The Tuesday, September 21 story is headed, "Seeking a Home That Fits; Elephants' Case Highlights Limits of Zoos." The article looks at the Detroit Zoo's attempts to send its ailing elephants to sanctuary, as the American Zoo and Aquarium Association tries to strong-arm the zoo into sending them to another zoo instead, threatening loss of AZA membership if the Detroit Zoo does not comply. Post reporter Marc Kaufman writes, "Dismayed, the Detroit zoo this week made the first formal appeal ever of an AZA elephant placement decision. It is now marshaling supporters to try to convince the association that, when it comes to elephant care, it's time for change." We learn: "The dispute could have major implications for the way zoos operate and provide for their elephants, and for the future of elephants in many other zoos. Already, the controversy is being seen as a defining moment in the broadening national debate over animal welfare and animal rights." And we read how different life in one of the sanctuaries, either the 100-acre elephant range in California or the 2,700-acre facility in Tennessee, would be for the elephants, compared to life in a concrete zoo. The opportunity to roam is not the only issue: "In the sanctuaries, the animals are largely allowed to do as they choose. In addition, keepers and the animals never come into direct contact, and keepers use only positive enforcement methods to encourage the animals to behave. In many zoos, elephant keepers still have direct access to the animals inside their enclosures, a practice that requires some level of dominance and physical intimidation to train the animals and protect the keepers. "One of Kagan's objections to moving Winky and Wanda to the Columbus zoo is that the facility -- acknowledged to be one of the nation's best for elephants -- nonetheless uses dominance techniques." There is a lovely quote from Ron Kagan, director of the Detroit Zoo: "We just don't see how threatening or punishing an elephant can be ever okay." Kaufman mentions the similar situation in San Francisco, as that zoo attempts to send its elephants to sanctuary and comes up against the AZA. There is a nice quote from Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States: "AZA is finding itself not just trying to contain a brushfire, but seeing the blaze break out all around the country." That is an encouraging statement! Kaufman goes further, "In resisting calls to send Wanda and Winky to a sanctuary, the AZA is also trying to stave off difficult questions being raised about keeping any elephants in captivity -- questions that could easily mushroom into a broader debate about rhinos or lions or other big mammals." You can read the full article on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36782-2004Sep20.html or on the MSNBC website (the shorter link might work better) at: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6058403/ It presents a great opportunity for appreciative letters to the editor questioning the practice of keeping wild animals captive for human amusement. The Post takes letters at: letters@washpost.com and instructs, "Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments." Shorter letters are more likely to be published. But even unpublished letters serve a vital function -- they let editors know what kinds of stories (animal protection stories, for example) generate a lot of interest.
BEAR HUNT CONTROVERSY ON FRONT PAGE OF WASHINGTON POST A front page story in the Monday, September 20, Washington Post tells us that Maryland is preparing for its first bear hunt in 51 years. The article, by David A. Fahrenthold, is headed, "In Md., Two Sides Take Aim Before Bear Hunt Begins." Other states have hunts but, the article tells us, "Maryland is also what political scientists call a blue state, the kind of densely settled and traditionally liberal place where animal rights advocates have a better chance of being heard. In New Jersey, another blue state, last year's inaugural bear hunt turned into such a public-relations debacle that authorities called off this year's hunt." The news about New Jersey is encouraging and shows us the power of protest: "This year in New Jersey, hunting opponents have crawled into humane bear traps and held vigils outside Campbell's home. Campbell decided he wouldn't go through it again and has refused to issue permits for a hunt this year. "'We simply can't conduct a hunt at that level of controversy,' he said in an interview last week. Instead, Campbell wants the state to use strategies that don't involve killing, including possible sterilization." I know the bears, if they could, would thank those who held the vigils. And I send my thanks to all those who sent letters to the press -- they let the editors know that the hunt was widely controversial, and thereby influenced the media coverage. We learn that "Maryland's bear population hit a low of about a dozen in the 1950s but has rebounded to about 500" and that the Maryland hunts set for Oct. 25 to 30 and Dec. 6 to 11, "will net, at most, 30 bears." So one wonders how they are going to have a real impact, except for the pleasure the hunt will give the hunting lobby. The article tells us that animal advocacy groups, such as the Fund for Animals, http://www.Fund.org "won a symbolic victory when a legislative committee voted against the hunt last month. But under Maryland law, Ehrlich was free to ignore that vote -- and he did. Now the groups are considering a lawsuit." You can read the full article on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34081-2004Sep19.html This front page story presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor about this particular hunt or hunting in general. The Washington Post takes letters at: letters@washpost.com and instructs: "Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments."
SUPERB PIECE BY MATTHEW SCULLY ON CANDIDATES COURTING HUNTING LOBBY Matthew Scully, author of the beautiful book, "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of the Animals, and the Call to Mercy" has left the White House, where he worked as a senior speechwriter for George W. Bush. Reflecting the change, we find a wonderful piece by him on the front page of the Views section (pg V1) of the Sunday, September 19, Arizona Republic. In "Firing blanks with phony gun machismo" Scully blatantly reveals his distaste for the hunting lobby and for it being "the object of endless flattery from both candidates because of the importance of rural swing states." He quotes, with obvious distaste, remarks about hunting made by both Bush and Kerry, then comments, "Groveling in word is no longer enough, however, to convince sport hunters you're one of them. And so we now have the dreary ritual in which candidates have to go out and kill something, with cameras present to record the moment." We learn about the candidates hunting expeditions. Then Vice President's Cheney's efforts get particular attention: "A witness to one of the vice president's earlier hunts described to me how gamekeepers shook the cages to dizzy the birds before release, though apparently such measures were unnecessary here. The only challenge of marksmanship, one imagines, was trying to see through a cloud of feathers filling the air as a total of 417 pheasants were shot in a single morning, 70 by the vice president himself. This was followed, after the gentlemen had lunched, by more heroics at the expense of hundreds of tame mallard ducks." Those of us who have read Dominion (I highly recommend it! You can buy it on this website on the Recommended Reading page) are familiar with Scully's take on the Safari Club. In this piece he slams the Safari Club and the power it has shown in the current administration. I do not want to share more of the piece, because I do not want to discourage anybody from reading the whole thing. Scully is a gifted and colorful writer. You'll find it on line at: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0919scully0919.html It presents a great opportunity for appreciative letters to the editor. One might address the power of the animal abuse industries and lobbies, or talk about hunting, or look at any aspect of the way human society treats members of other species. The Arizona Republic takes letters at: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/help/contact.html#editor and advises, "The Arizona Republic welcomes letters to the editor of up to 200 words on any topic. They may be edited for clarity and length. Letters must include your name, address and a daytime phone number. If your letter is selected for publication, we will notify you."
US AGENCY SITES UCSF FOR ABUSE OF LAB ANIMALS A story on the front page of the Wednesday, September 15, San Francisco Chronicle was headed, "U.S. agency cites UCSF for abuses of animals. 'The gravity of the violations is great,' complaint says." Though the story is disturbing, it is gratifying to see vivisection horrors making the front page with the focus being on the abuse of animals rather than the abuse of vivisectors by animal rights activists. The story, by Julie Guthrie, opens: "Federal regulators have filed a complaint against UC San Francisco alleging 60 violations of the Animal Welfare Act that ranged from failing to keep animal cages clean to improper treatment of research animals during and after surgery. "The complaint by the U.S. Department of Agriculture says the violations took place between 2001 and 2003 and included such startling surgical procedures as cutting into a monkey's skull without providing pain relief. "The violations originally were reported by USDA inspectors during biannual visits to UCSF. "'The gravity of the violations is great,' the complaint says. It was issued Aug. 31 and gives the university 20 days to respond. "Colleen Carroll, a USDA attorney, said that violations of the Animal Welfare Act could result in civil or criminal penalties or revocation or suspension of a medical research license." We learn that, "the university had recently received a coveted stamp of approval from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, a private, nonprofit organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals." And we learn that "The USDA has filed fewer than a dozen formal complaints against animal research facilities over the past 10 years." That gives an indication of the extent of abuse that must be occurring at the lab. There is a strong quote from Suzanne Roy, program director for In Defense of Animals: "These are incidents the USDA uncovered during its twice-a-year inspections to the labs. A lot of the suffering occurred in front of the eyes of the inspector. You can only imagine what goes on when the inspector is not present." The article closes with a reference to more shocking treatment of primates: "UCSF joins a small group of research facilities that have been the subject of USDA complaints. Before complaints are filed, letters of warnings are issued and penalties levied. In 2000, UCSF agreed to pay a $2,000 penalty for a researcher's use of water deprivation to train his monkeys." You can read the whole article, which details other abuses, on line at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/15/MNG088P5B61.DTL The front page story presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor about the use of members of other species as experimental subjects. The Chronicle takes letters 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. Please paste the text into the e-mail; do not send attachments. Our virus-detecting software will delete e-mail with attachments." Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.
CALIFORNIA BILL TO BAN FOIE GRAS An article in the current issue of Time Magazine, headed "Off the Gourmet Shelves," mentions the current California foie gras bill. (September 20, page 18.) Lisa McLaughlin writes: "AU REVOIR TO FOIE GRAS?" "An outcry over animal cruelty has led to proposed legislation in California that would outlaw production and sale of the fatted duck and goose livers." The article says no more on the issue. But letters to the editor can detail the cruelty behind foie gras. You'll find loads of information on the issue at http://www.nofoiegras.org and www.StopForceFeeding.com . Foie gras is produced when ducks or geese, who weigh just a few pounds themselves, are force-fed about a pound of food, through metal pipes shoved down their esophagi, two or three times a day, for weeks. Their livers expand to approximately ten times the normal size. Those diseased fatty livers are foie gras. The California bill, SB1520, prohibits force-forcing birds, so that they consume more than they would normally, for the purpose of enlarging their livers, and also bans the sale of all food produced that way. Therefore it effectively bans foie gras from the state. California is the world's fifth largest economy so such a law in that state would be a significant step forward for the animals. And California is one of only two states in the USA where foie gras is produced. A similar bill has been put forward in the other state, New York. Further, the success of the California bill bodes well for a future federal bill banning foie gras from the United States. The cruelly produced delicacy is banned from many other countries. To the surprise and delight of many who have tried before to get farmed animal legislation passed, the bill has passed through all four standard phases of legislation -- the votes of the senate committee, the full senate, the assembly committee, and the full assembly. It now awaits only the governor's signature. Its success is without doubt in some part due to its having had the blessing of being sponsored by Senate President John Burton -- widely considered to be the most influential legislator in the state. Though foie gras will be legal in California until 2012, the passage of the law banning it sends a powerful message to consumers. People tempted to order it in the next few years will know they are considering a food deemed, not just by vegetarian animal rights activists, but by the California legislature, to be unacceptably cruel. Unfortunately there is some controversy in the animal rights community surrounding the bill. I thought I should address that here as some people may be receiving contradictory alerts, some asking you to urge the governor to sign and some asking you to urge the governor to veto. The bill is being opposed by the Humane Farming Association and Friends of Animals, groups that do good work but that have a history of opposing animal friendly legislative efforts that they see as imperfect. For example, HFA worked against the 2002 Florida ballot initiative to ban sow gestation crates. (It passed , with a ten year phase out period. And the existence of that period proved irrelevant -- within months after the bill passed the largest farm that used them closed down.) Though neither group was behind the original bill foie gras bill, neither opposed it. They oppose the amended form. The amendments: a) allow for a seven and a half year phase out period and b) prohibit, during the phase out period, any legal suits, on animal cruelty grounds, against foie gras producers. When the bill was introduced, a suit was underway against Sonoma foie gras. Those involved in that suit were, naturally, disappointed by the amendments. But the groups involved in the suit are the same groups now strongly pushing the amended version of the bill. Though they were enthusiastic about their lawsuit, and thankful for the anti foie gras publicity it brought, they see the bill as far more likely to stamp out foie gras in California. No animal cruelty lawsuit has ever succeeded in California when up against standard agricultural practices. And without the passage of SB1520, force-feeding of birds will remain standard agricultural practice. Rather than accepting the amendments, some activists would have preferred to see the bill tabled and perhaps brought back next year, in an attempt to pass it unamended. However, it is extremely rare for any bill, let alone a farmed animal cruelty bill, to pass through the legislature unamended. And to the best of my knowledge, no ban on cruel farmed animal practices has ever passed, anywhere in the world, without a phase out period. Also of vital importance is the end of Senator Burton's term this year. The groups pushing the bill see little hope of its passage without him behind it. Therefore, having read the bill carefully, and understanding the reservations some have about it, I come down, firmly, in favor of its passage. It would be heartbreaking if a ban on an egregious practice made it this far and then failed due to opposition from within the animal rights world. It would be a tragedy for the ducks and it would destroy our movement's credibility in the legislature. So I join The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, APRL, Farm Sanctuary, The Fund for Animals, Gourmetcruelty.com, HSUS, IDA, Last Chance for Animals, Los Angeles Lawyers for Animals, United Poultry Concerns, Viva USA and others in asking all Californians to put a quick call in to Governor Schwarzenegger's office, urging him to sign SB1520, the ban on foie gras. Calls from constituents are counted and matter! Call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Phone: 916-445-2841 And please don't forget the media! Take this opportunity inform Time magazine readers about foie gras. Time Magazine takes letters at letters@Time.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.
ABUSE OF ANIMALS IN UCSF LABORATORY A story on the front page of the Wednesday, September 15, San Francisco Chronicle was headed, "U.S. agency cites UCSF for abuses of animals. 'The gravity of the violations is great,' complaint says." Though the story is disturbing, it is gratifying to see vivisection horrors making the front page with the focus being on the abuse of animals rather than the abuse of vivisectors by animal rights activists. The story, by Julie Guthrie, opens: "Federal regulators have filed a complaint against UC San Francisco alleging 60 violations of the Animal Welfare Act that ranged from failing to keep animal cages clean to improper treatment of research animals during and after surgery. "The complaint by the U.S. Department of Agriculture says the violations took place between 2001 and 2003 and included such startling surgical procedures as cutting into a monkey's skull without providing pain relief. "The violations originally were reported by USDA inspectors during biannual visits to UCSF. "'The gravity of the violations is great,' the complaint says. It was issued Aug. 31 and gives the university 20 days to respond. "Colleen Carroll, a USDA attorney, said that violations of the Animal Welfare Act could result in civil or criminal penalties or revocation or suspension of a medical research license." We learn that, "the university had recently received a coveted stamp of approval from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, a private, nonprofit organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals." And we learn that "The USDA has filed fewer than a dozen formal complaints against animal research facilities over the past 10 years." That gives an indication of the extent of abuse that must be occurring at the lab. There is a strong quote from Suzanne Roy, program director for In Defense of Animals: "These are incidents the USDA uncovered during its twice-a-year inspections to the labs. A lot of the suffering occurred in front of the eyes of the inspector. You can only imagine what goes on when the inspector is not present." The article closes with a reference to more shocking treatment of primates: "UCSF joins a small group of research facilities that have been the subject of USDA complaints. Before complaints are filed, letters of warnings are issued and penalties levied. In 2000, UCSF agreed to pay a $2,000 penalty for a researcher's use of water deprivation to train his monkeys." You can read the whole article, which details other abuses, on line at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/15/MNG088P5B61.DTL The front page story presents a great opportunity for letters to the editor about the use of members of other species as experimental subjects. The Chronicle takes letters 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. Please paste the text into the e-mail; do not send attachments. Our virus-detecting software will delete e-mail with attachments." Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.
SAN FRANCISCO ZOO TOLD IT CANNOT RELEASE ELEPHANTS TO SANCTUARY A couple of weeks ago we read that the Detroit Zoo's decision to send its elephants to sanctuary was being threatened by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. The zoo is in danger of losing its license if it does the right thing by its elephants. Today's Los Angeles Times tells us the situation is similar in San Francisco. An article on the issue is headed, "San Francisco Zoo Embroiled in Controversy; Trade group threatens to pull its accreditation over how a decision was reached to send two remaining elephants to a wild animal sanctuary." (September 13, page B4.) Robert Hollis opens: "As this city's zoo prepares to send its last two elephants into retirement at a California wild animal sanctuary, a trade group that represents North American zoos and theme parks is threatening to pull the zoo's accreditation." We learn: "If the San Francisco Zoo loses its accreditation, it would be barred from sending animals to or receiving them from other accredited zoos across the country, said Nancy Chan, a zoo spokeswoman." Given how stressful it is for the animals to be shipped around the country, often breaking social bonds, one can't help but note that the loss of accreditation would have an upside for the animals. But it is not something the zoo is happy to risk. We learn that the zoo was pressured by animal rights activists and city officials, to release its elephants: "Mollinedo, former head of the Los Angeles Zoo, and his predecessors at the San Francisco Zoo have been strongly criticized for years by animal rights activists for keeping elephants in a small, antiquated enclosure. "The controversy intensified after the zoo lost two of its elephants earlier this year, one dying unexpectedly and the other being euthanized because of severe health problems. "Chan in effect agreed with the zoo association's conclusion, saying that Mollinedo decided to send the remaining elephants to a sanctuary because of pressure to do so from elected city officials." Deniz Bolbol of 'In Defense of Animals' is quoted: "The vast majority of elephants in AZA-accredited zoos die from captivity-induced health problems, including foot and joint problems, arthritis and so on." And we learn from her that elephants live about 34 years in accredited zoos, compared with 50 to 60 years in the wild. The case of Ruby is also discussed: "A similar situation occurred in July when Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, under public pressure, ordered the return of Ruby, a 43-year-old African elephant, from the Knoxville Zoo in Tennessee to the Los Angeles Zoo. The order ran counter to the zoo association's recommendations to keep Ruby at Knoxville. "Los Angeles Zoo General Manager John Lewis said the reason for sending Ruby to Knoxville was to incorporate her into an existing herd of African pachyderms. That didn't happen, he said. Instead, Knoxville officials said, Ruby was kept apart from the other African elephants for 14 months. Officials declined to answer questions about the status of the Los Angeles Zoo's accreditation." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elephants13sep13,1,3689697.story It presents a good opportunity for letters to the editor against keeping wild animals in captivity for human amusement. Some, while writing to the Los Angeles Times, may want to use the platform to call for Ruby's release to sanctuary. Since she is currently in Tennessee, the state where Carol Buckley has her wonderful elephant sanctuary, one must at least question the choice to bring her all the way back to the zoo in Los Angeles, as other zoos begin to release their elephants to sanctuary. 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.
DAIRY FARM POLLUTION IN LOS ANGELES TIMES There is a superb story in the Friday, September 10, Los Angeles Times, headed "Air of Unease Over Big Dairies. Sacramento Valley groups are raising a stink to keep more farms from moving in." (Page C2.) Reporter Brian Melley tells us that in the Sacramento Valley, mega-dairies "are blamed for pollution and a stench powerful enough to knock a buzzard off a manure wagon." We read: "With only two big dairies in the Sacramento Valley, environmentalists are using tactics they employed to stall dairy construction in the San Joaquin Valley to halt the northward migration of cows, and government is getting in on the act, considering stiffer regulations and even a moratorium on large dairies. "After Heritage Dairy spewed 1.3 million gallons of manure into waterways leading to the Sacramento River in November, environmentalists launched attacks in Solano and Yolo counties to stem the flow of dairies into the region from places such as Southern California, where they are being displaced by housing. There is a good quote from attorney Brent Newell: "I used to use the term 'factory farm,' but these things don't deserve to have 'farm' involved," he said. "It's industrial in efficiency and scale. When you compare the amount of pollution that comes out of them, they produce pollution like any other industry. It's not agriculture anymore." We learn: "Last month Newell filed a Sierra Club lawsuit against the Yolo County Board of Supervisors for approving the expansion of the 1,500-cow Cache Creek Dairy outside of Woodland. The suit, pending in Yolo County Superior Court, claimed that the board failed to follow stricter rules it established for new and expanding dairies in 2000 after Jack Kasbergen moved his operation there from New Mexico. "The suit seeks to force the county to require a permit that would trigger an extensive environmental review. Sierra Club members said they wanted to deter other big dairies from moving to the area." You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dairy10sep10,1,5120929.story The story does not mention the suffering of dairy cows on factory farms (or 'animal factories'). But we have the opportunity to focus on that with our letters to the editor. Please write. The Los Angeles Times takes letters at letters@latimes.com You'll find information on the suffering of dairy cows at: http://www.factoryfarming.com/dairy.htm And that website has shocking photos from dairies, and of veal calves (the dairy and veal industries are interdependent) at: http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/photos_dairy.htm 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. I send thanks to Los Angeles activist Eric Prescott for making sure we saw today's story.
OP-ED BY KAREN DAWN ON MILITANT TACTICS I have an op-ed in the Monday, September 6, Guardian, a newspaper distributed throughout the UK. I did not choose the heading, "Gandhi's way won't do." I am big fan of Gandhi and I am uncomfortable with violence. However, I cannot vehemently criticize the actions of the militants while encouraging people, for the sake of the animals, to ride the valuable wave of publicity they create. Also, regarding Gandhi, I realize that the situation he faced in India is not a direct parallel to what the animals face today. I will take the luxury of unlimited words on DawnWatch to clarify another point: During a last minute word cut I rewrote a line, which is no longer as clear as I would like. I say that the Black Panthers amplified the still radical but sane and non violent voice of Martin Luther King. I was trying to describe a good-cop-bad-cop situation. I have heard that Martin Luther King once said that he could not have achieved what he did if there had not been somebody waiting in the wings with a Molotov cocktail. I don't know that he said it -- it wasn't part of his popular "I Have a Dream" speech. But he could have. Every social movement has its radical, even violent, fringe, that makes the mainstream of the movement look truly mainstream, and appealing. I would prefer activists to know that the editors combined two sentences, leaving "In contrast to Vlasak, many animal rights leaders have said we should look to the tactics of Gandhi and King." Jerry Vlasak is an emergency room surgeon, who spends his days saving human lives. Though he is willing to acknowledge the effectiveness and speak of the legitimacy of other tactics, I would not have described him as "in contrast" to Gandhi and King. Some activists fear that the militants will turn the public against the animal rights cause. It is a reasonable concern. But the public will not be moved towards our cause if it has no information on the situation in our laboratories and on our factory farms. Therefore, no matter what activists think of the militant stance, or of my op-ed about it, I hope they will use the publicity and the current opportunity for letters to the editor. Please write letters that appeal to the basic concern most people have for animals, and that provide some information on what our society does to members of other species. Letters to the editor should always be under 200 words. The Guardian take letters at: letters@guardian.co.uk and instructs, "We do not publish letters where only an email address is supplied; please include a full postal address and a reference to the relevant article. If you do not want your email address published, please say so. We may edit letters." You can read the op-ed on this website by clicking here, or on line at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1298045,00.html
VIRGINIA PASSES LAW ENFORCING DISSECTION CHOICE We have encouraging news today. An Associated Press article, in the New York Times, is headed "In Some Biology Classes, Dissection is Optional." (Monday, September 6, page A14.) We learn that Virginia has "joined a handful of states that have enacted laws allowing students to opt out of dissecting fetal pigs, cats, earthworms or other animals." "Starting this academic year, all Virginia students must be told they can decline to dissect without penalty, and instructors must provide them with alternative learning tools, including computer programs, Internet tutorials and plastic models." The change is part of a promising trend: "Virginia is among nine states that require school districts to provide dissection alternatives. Florida was the first to pass such a law, in 1985, followed by California in 1988. New Jersey is also considering similar legislation. Argentina, India and Israel are among nations that have banned dissection in schools." The article also gives information on the current use of animals in school dissection in the United States: "The Humane Society estimates that 6 million animals--mostly frogs, fetal pigs and cats--are dissected annually in high schools across the nation." I was surprised to learn the number is so large -- comparable to the number of companion animals killed each year for lack of homes. So if the trend catches on in every state, many lives will be saved. And it is an important development in that it reflects changing attitudes about the appropriate treatment of members of other species, and growing respect for those who respect them. You can read the whole story on line at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/education/06dissection.html It presents a great opportunity for letters about our treatment of nonhumans. The New York Times takes letters at: letters@nytimes.com The story appeared in many other papers. The following link will take you to many of them: http://tinyurl.com/3rl2f If your local paper covered the story, please consider writing a brief letter to the editor in support. The smaller the paper, the more likely it is to be published --- many small to medium sized papers publish a high proportion of letters that are submitted. 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 FRONT PAGE FLUFF PIECE ON MEXICAN RODEO The front page of the Saturday, September 4, Los Angeles Times has a story on the Mexican rodeo, known as charreria. When I saw the story, headed, "Riding on Ropes and Dreams" I immediately thought of an article on the same topic printed last year in the Miami Herald. I was shocked by the difference. The Miami Herald story described a popular event, bull-tailing, in gruesome detail: "The door opens and a startled white bull charges forward. Fate quickly follows: A Venezuelan cowboy, or llanero, reaches down from his horse and grabs the bull's tail, knocking it to the ground in a haze of dust....In Florida's version of bull tailing, two mounted cowboys chase a bull up and down an oblong arena, competing to flip the animal over as many times as possible within two minutes. In the Venezuelan version, the chase lasts three minutes and involves four cowboys, flipping a bull up to five times per run. The helmet-clad rider closes in on the bull at a full gallop, grabs its tail and then leans in the opposite direction, sending the bull into a fishtail spin and tumble...After one or two falls, most of the nine Brahman bulls showcased Sunday either could not, or would not, get up....When the bulls refuse to stand again, out rides Cuban-American equestrian Juan Pérez Rodríguez, his white straw cowboy hat pitched low over his face, to shock them with an electrical rod. At a Southwest Miami event last year, the coleadores broke the bulls' tails, according to reports made to the Humane Society, in keeping with an old Venezuelan tradition -- even though the action was officially banned by the sport's federation several years ago. ''If they don't break the tail, the bull takes longer to get up,' said Teresa Molinos, the sport's female world champion and a Miami resident." I particularly remembered this moving scenario from the Miami article: "But on Sunday, the tame American bulls -- a much smaller version of the wild bulls used in Venezuela -- were not keen to get up. One young bull suffered a serious leg injury after he was toppled by a horse and rider. The injured rider limped out of the arena with a bloody knee. As no veterinarian was present, the bull's injury went undiagnosed, but the startled animal could not move. He dragged his leg and stumbled, refusing to get up as the crowd jeered. Out rode Rodriguez, bearing his long electrical rod. Then, across the dusty track came the intervening scream of 10-year-old Colombian Jaime Andrés Torres: 'Noooooooo!!!''' How sad to compare that coverage to Saturday's Los Angeles Times front page fluff piece, which described the perseverance, pride, and artistry of the competitors. In a story almost 2,000 words long, the following is what was devoted to the issue of bull-tailing: "The growing popularity of charreria, and the increased political sophistication of Mexican Americans, was evident in their response to a 2002 proposal to outlaw bull-tailing, a rodeo event in which charros pull a running bull to the ground by the tail. "Years before, the state Senate had banned horse-tripping, part of another charreria event. Charros went to Sacramento, dressed in traditional riding outfits. Their representative spoke broken English. They knew no one at the state Capitol. Only two senators voted against the ban on horse-tripping, and the practice remains illegal in California. "'We never had to defend ourselves in the past,' says Marcos Franco, director of the U.S. division of the Mexican Charro Federation. 'They just ran us over.' "But when animal rights activists pushed for the ban on bull-tailing in 2002, hundreds of charro enthusiasts wrote to legislators. They hired a Sacramento lobbyist. By this time, more immigrants had become U.S. citizens and could vote; more legislators were Latino. The bill died. 'Charros believe that a ban on bull-tailing would have killed the sport in California. Instead, it was invigorated.' You can read the rest of the article on line at: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-rodeo4sep04,1,5373066.story The Los Angeles Times takes letters at: letters@latimes.com Newspapers are not quick to publish criticisms of themselves, so though the paper's coverage is disappointing, letters expressing outrage over charreria, and bull tailing, and the legislators that allowed it to continue will be more effective than those expressing outrage over the Time's coverage. Please write strong but polite letters. 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.
GROUNDBREAKING COVERAGE OF RINGLING ELEPHANT CRUELTY On Friday, September 3, KTVU in San Francisco, in time for Ringling Brother's visit to that city, aired a story headed, "Ringling Brothers: Under fire for elephant abuse." You can watch it on the station's website at http://www.ktvu.com/video/3711771/detail.html . It is heartbreaking but groundbreaking. It includes footage of Ringling elephants being hit with bull hooks, and distressing information on the deaths of three baby elephants in the last six and a half years. One drowned, refusing to come out of a pond to return to a trainer who allegedly beat him regularly. One died an hour after being forced to perform while ill, against the recommendations of a veterinarian. And one somehow had both back legs broken while he was being trained to climb on a stool, and was put down. We learn that Ringling still uses pictures of the three now dead baby elephants in its advertisement, which ran in the San Francisco Chronicle promoting the circus. KTVU deserves a flood of thank-yous for its superb piece on the circus -- so many stations still do fluff pieces on that cruel institution. Please take a moment to give the station the credit it deserves. KTVU takes comments at news@ktvu.com Thanks to Mike Markarian, President of the Fund for Animals ( http://www.Fund.org ) for making sure we saw this story. The Fund is one of the groups behind the lawsuit suing Ringling Brothers for cruelty to elephants.
DETROIT ZOO TOLD IT CAN'T SEND ITS ELEPHANTS TO SANCTUARY There is discouraging news from Detroit today. On May 20, a story on the front page of the Detroit Free Press gave of us the beautiful news that Detroit Zoo was to become the first zoo to release its elephants to sanctuary, solely on ethical grounds. But the September 3 edition of the same paper has a headline that reads, "Zoo told it can't send elephants to sanctuary." The story, by Hugh McDiarmid JR, opens: "The Detroit Zoo's plan to send aging, arthritic elephants Winky and Wanda to a sanctuary was blocked Thursday. "If the pachyderms go anywhere, it must be to the Columbus Zoo in Ohio, decided a committee of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the group that provides care standards and accreditation to zoos nationwide." There Winky and Wanda would join five other elephants in a five acre enclosure. It is better than the one acre enclosure at the Detroit Zoo, but Ron Kagan, the Detroit Zoo Director, had "expected to send Winky and Wanda to one of two U.S. sanctuaries. There, they would be able to roam hundreds of acres and get more exercise like they would in the wild, where elephants can walk 30 miles a day." We learn that Kagan has suggested the zoo might appeal. And we learn "Violating the AZA recommendation by sending the elephants to a sanctuary could mean disciplinary action against the Detroit Zoo and possible revocation of the association's accreditation." How interesting -- a zoo could lose its accreditation for doing the right thing by the elephants. You can read the whole story on line at: http://www.freep.com/news/metro/zoo3e_20040903.htm It presents a good opportunity for letters to the editor supporting Ron Kagan and against keeping elephants in zoos -- or keeping any animal captive for human amusement. For information on captive elephant issues you might want to check out http://www.savewildelephants.com/ . The Detroit Free Press takes letters at letters@freepress.com and instructs, "All writers must provide full name, full home address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters should be 200 words or less and are subject to editing."
BIZARRO'S STATEMENT AGAINST TROPHY HUNTING Today I get to share something fun. Those who have been receiving DawnWatch for a while are familiar with the pro animal rights stance taken by Dan Piraro, the creator of the Bizarro cartoon. The cartoon is syndicated in hundreds of newspapers around the world. It is not an animal rights cartoon, but rather an amusing, 'bizarre' look at life. However every few weeks Dan makes sure to include an animal rights message. Today, September 2, he takes a look at trophy hunting.
Two men, with cocktails in hand, are looking at a wall on which are mounted the heads of various animals -- a rhino, a buck, a boar and others. One man explains, "This room celebrates my egocentric disregard for other species." If Bizarro is not in your local paper, why not ask for it? Just a few requests will at least get the cartoon considered. If you go to Piraro's website, http://www.Bizarro.com you will get a feel for his work and if you click on "Animal Stuff" you are in for a real treat. You will see the type of animal friendly messages that he chooses to focus on intermittently. You'll also find an essay headed "Why I'm Vegan." If your paper does carry Bizarro, you can use the cartoon as a jump off point for a letter about trophy hunting. It is a stretch, but smaller papers publish a large proportion of the letters they receive, so it is well worth a shot. I am happy to help anybody who is having trouble finding the correct address for a letter to their editor, and I am also happy to edit letters.
|
