Another lovely and moving essay by Jon Katz, Bedlam Farm blog
The war against the carriage horses in New York has faltered, for
now, it is far from over. Everywhere, the animals are under siege, they
are trying to take them away from us, they are persecuting us for
loving and working with them. We see in the long and brutal campaign to
ban the horses that money does not innoculate anyone against ignorance
and cruelty, and that people who say they love animals can be
inexcusably abusive to people.
The mayor of New York has not retracted his vow to banish the
horses, or his claim that the people who ride with them are immoral,
nor have the real estate developers stopped drooling and plotting over
their stables. The people in the carriage trade continue to live in fear
and persecution, the horses remain in peril from the people who would
destroy them to save them.
A compassionate and progressive city could easily find a way to keep
them safe and healthy in New York – that would be a minor achieivement
compared to the building of Central Park – but the so-called
progressives there have not yet figured out that preserving the horses
and the environment in the city's fabled park, it's soul, is, in fact,
the most progressive thing they could possibly do.
Despite staggering odds, the horses triumphed, they triggered a great
social awakening across the country: we see the need a new kind of
animal rights movement, one that keeps animals among us and treats
animals and people with love, respect and dignity. Continue Reading
Showing posts with label animal rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animal rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Friday, July 31, 2015
New York Judge Denies Request to Extend Legal Rights to 2 Chimps
Another chimp personhood case is over. Judge Barbara Jaffe delivered her
opinion yesterday. She wrote, “For the purpose of establishing rights,
the law presently categorizes entities in a simple, binary, ‘all or
nothing,’ fashion,” noting: “Persons have rights, duties, and
obligations. Things do not.”
JULY 30, 2015.
Continue reading the main story
JULY 30, 2015.
ALBANY
— In a case watched by animal rights activists and courtroom curiosity
seekers, a State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan on Thursday denied a
request to free a pair of chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo, being held at a
state university on Long Island. The unorthodox petition — which sought a writ of habeas corpus, an age-old method of challenging unlawful imprisonment — was the latest attempt by the nonprofit Nonhuman Rights Project to establish that apes are “legal persons.”
The
group argues that chimps are self-aware and autonomous, a contention it
has supported by submitting affidavits attesting to the animals’
intelligence, language skills and personalities, among other traits, in
several cases filed in New York on behalf of various imprisoned
primates.
In
what the group hoped was a positive sign, Justice Barbara Jaffe of
State Supreme Court in April ordered a hearing on whether Hercules and
Leo, 8-year-old apes living as research subjects at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, could be released and transferred to an animal sanctuary in Florida. Arguments were heard in late May.
But while Justice Jaffe took the case seriously — her 33-page decision cited the long history of habeas corpus
and included references to discrimination against women and
African-American slaves — she could not quite see Hercules and Leo as
people in the eyes of the law.
“For
the purpose of establishing rights, the law presently categorizes
entities in a simple, binary, ‘all or nothing,’ fashion,” the justice
wrote, noting: “Persons have rights, duties, and obligations. Things do
not.”
“Animals,
including chimpanzees and other highly intelligent mammals, are
considered property under the law,” she continued. “They are accorded no
legal rights,” beyond being free from mistreatment or abuse.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Legislation Briefs April 27, 2013
Dear SAOVA Friends,
Never underestimate the resolve of animal rights organizations to bring an end to animal ownership and breeding as we know it today. Following release of the APHIS 2014 Budget request, SAOVA reactivated the APHIS Rule Opposition List and it continues to grow. The list is truly an attention-getter; however, we need a HUGE push now to build it even larger before carrying it again to Congressional staff.
If your organization or business is not listed please do so now! EVERY state needs to be represented. Send an email signed by an officer of the organization stating opposition to the Rule to Susan Wolf: cubhill@earthlink.net. Please include state where your organization is located.
The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated. Thanks for reading.
Cross posting is encouraged.
Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net
DELISTING GRAY WOLVES
Plans have been drafted to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states.
Roughly 5,000 wolves are now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes and are believed to be enough to ensure their long-term survival without introducing gray wolves elsewhere, such as the West Coast, parts of New England and the Southern Rockies. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the rule is under internal review and will be subject to public comment before a final decision is made.
FEDERAL EGG BILLS INTRODUCED
A bill based on the agreement between the HSUS and the United Egg Producers to set standards for egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs has been introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) are cosponsors of S 820. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) has introduced a companion bill in the House. HR 1731 is cosponsored by Representatives John Campbell (R-CA45); Jeff Denham (R-CA10); Sam Farr (D-CA20); Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA8); and Jared Huffman (D-CA2).
Sources say the United Egg Producers are committed to getting the legislation passed before the end of September. The Egg Bill establishes an approximately 18-year transition period where conventional cages will be phased out and hens will be housed in either enriched cages or in cage-free systems.
Fallout from Prop2, the 2008 HSUS backed ballot initiative in California, continues to threaten the California egg industry as 2015 draws closer and caged eggs will be banned. According to the 2008 UC Davis survey, California produces about 6 percent of the nation's table eggs, and consumes about 12 percent. The value of table egg production in California was about $330 million in 2007 and the industry produced almost 5 billion eggs per year from almost 20 million laying hens.
Although the number of eggs produced by cage-free hens has been increasing the last few years, hens housed in conventional cages are responsible for over 90 percent of egg production in the U.S.
HUDSON VALLEY WEBSITE HACKED
Animal rights activists hacked the website of Hudson Valley Foie Gras — a large U.S. supplier — and sent the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of their customers to animal rights groups. North American Animal Liberation Press Office published the information online. To commemorate Earth Day, hackers targeted Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the largest foie gras farm in the U.S., because they believe the ducks are being tortured.
Never one to let an opportunity for media attention slip by, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) immediately sent a letter California Attorney General Kamala Harris asking her to investigate purchases by California residents that appeared on the hacked list. ALDF wrote, “While wealthy restaurateurs and foreign corporations are exploiting California's under enforcement of the foie gras law, the state struggles with a budget crisis and cities flirt with bankruptcy. California taxpayers should not be subsidizing persistent violators when the state is nearly bankrupt and the foie gras law authorizes citations payable to enforcing agencies up to $1,000 per sale.”
AUTISM RESEARCH LAB TRASHED
Activists occupied an animal facility at the University of Milan, Italy releasing mice and rabbits and mixing up cage labels to confuse experimental protocols. Researchers at the university say that it will take years to recover their work. Many of the animals at the facility are genetic models for psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia. Some of the mice they removed were delicate mutants and immunosuppressed nude mice, which die very quickly outside controlled environments.
Five activists entered laboratories in the university’s pharmacology department on Saturday morning. The lack of signs of a break-in suggests that the activists may have used an illegally acquired electronic card to enter the lab. Activists posted photos of themselves on their website; two of them chained themselves by the neck to the main double doors. The department plans to press charges for theft and trespassing, and to recover financial damages.
Researchers worldwide are being asked to condemn acts these acts of extremism.
JUDGE DISMISSES ALDF LAWSUIT
SANTA CRUZ -- A judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc. alleging the company abused and neglected goats and rabbits. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Marigonda dismissed the suit filed by the national nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund on behalf of an organization called Stop Animal Exploitation Now after ruling that the local court was not the proper forum to address it. Santa Cruz Biotech supplies antibodies and other research materials to laboratories around the world. Last year it was ranked as the second-largest supplier in the United State's $1.6 billion global market for research antibodies, according to the journal Nature.
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel http://tinyurl.com/c6w3r3s
MAINE RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH
Introduced April 2, 2013. Resolution H930 proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to provide that the citizens of Maine have the personal right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to statutes enacted and agency rules that promote wildlife conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to provide that public hunting and fishing are a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRIES
Registry bills were introduced in 16 states for 2013 with multiple bills introduced in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The bills do not appear to have any momentum again this year; however, HB3747 in Texas is scheduled for a hearing Monday, April 29, 2013. Texas residents are urged to oppose this measure.
In Hawaii the Attorney General’s office and the Public Defender’s office submitted testimony in Opposition to the animal abuser registry. The Attorney General noted that only nine (9) potential covered offenders in the past fifteen years would be required to register under this proposed 2013 bill and expressed concern about the resources and funds that would be needed to set up, maintain, administer, and enforce the proposed registry for so few individuals. The Office of the Public Defender stated in their opposition that the registry proposed in this measure makes no sense. In addition they wrote, “While there is a governmental interest in keeping track of sex offenders, especially those who prey on strangers and children, there is no such interest or similar benefit in keeping track of animal abusers. These individuals do not typically prey on stray animals or pets that belong to strangers. The cases we have seen usually involve individuals abusing their own pets or a business owner and/or employee that mistreat their animals.” The letter continued, “The funds allocated to maintaining this registry would be better utilized by providing counseling to the offender and/or their family members.”
Thursday, March 14, 2013
SAOVA INTERVIEW WITH FRANKIE TRULL
Frankie Trull is president of the National Association for
Biomedical Research (NABR), a Washington, DC–based organization that advocates
for sound public policy in support of ethical and essential animal research.
She is also the President of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a non-profit
organization that educates the public about animal research. In 1991, Trull was
the recipient of the Distinguished Leadership Award from The Endocrine Society and the
Presidential Award from the Society
for Neuroscience. In 2003, she was given a Special Recognition Award from
the American College of Laboratory Medicine (ACLAM). In 2005, Trull received
the Public Service Award from the Association of Allergy and Immunology, the
Society of Toxicology's Contribution to the Public Awareness of Animal Welfare
Award, and the award for Education in Neuroscience from the Association of
Neuroscience Departments and Programs (ANDP). The Association of
American Medical Colleges awarded Trull their Special Recognition Award in
2007 and in 2010 she was made an Honorary Diplomate of the American College of
Laboratory Medicine.
Mrs. Trull graciously consented to conduct an interview
with SAOVA to discuss the benefits of animal research, the function of NABR,
and federal legislation that would expand the scope of the Animal Welfare Act.
Q: How does the focus of NABR differ
from that of its sister organization, the Foundation for Biomedical Research?
A: Whereas
the Foundation is a public education charity that focuses on informing and educating
the public about the importance of animals in biomedical research, NABR is an
institutional membership association
with the mission of ensuring sound public policy for the humane use of animals
in biomedical research. NABR spends a great deal of time educating law makers
and executive branch officials, and when necessary engages the courts in
support of its mission. NABR’s membership is comprised of 340 institutions,
both public and private, in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
Q: This month PETA posted a job listing
online for an Undercover Investigator. In the job description, the Position Objective is “to use a variety of undercover
investigative methods to conduct field investigations in PETA's focus areas,
including the use of animals for food, clothing, experimentation, and
entertainment.” How does the
research community prepare itself for intrusions of this nature into their
daily routines?
A: The threat of an animal rights
activist infiltrating a biomedical research facility is very real and has
occurred multiple times in the past. With more than three decades of
experience, NABR advises facilities on best practices for both preventing and managing
the consequences of infiltrations. We also provide each of our members with a
comprehensive Crisis Management Guide which walks them through the process of
protecting their facilities and employees and developing and maintaining a
crisis management team.
Q: The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes
coverage of rats, mice and birds used for research. In December 2012, the Animal Legal Defense Fund
(ALDF) introduced legislation that would rescind these exemptions, claiming it
restores the original intent of Congress.
As NABR was instrumental in obtaining the statutory exemptions and
amendments, has your position changed over the years regarding regulatory
intent of the AWA?
A: NABR is
currently in the process of surveying its membership to determine how many rats
and mice are in use at research facilities across the U.S. Although rats and
mice make up more than 95% of all animals in biomedical research, the
institutional responses to the survey will help NABR determine more precisely
how such legislation may affect both the regulated community and those
institutions that have never before been regulated by the USDA. For example,
many small biotechnology companies only use rats and mice, meaning they would
likely be subject to the same regulations as much larger institutions. This
could potentially be very costly, time consuming, and could present a threat to
struggling small businesses -- especially when one considers the Secretary of
Agriculture has the legal authority to levy fines against a research facility
up to $10,000 per animal, per day. The costs could be astronomical.
Furthermore, because of the large number of rodents used in research it is
unclear whether the USDA would have the resources to regulate the species. With
the fiscal constraints Congress has been facing, it seems unlikely they would
appropriate additional funds for these purposes.
Q: In their white paper, ALDF claims
that withholding federal protection from these animals means that researchers
need not consider alternatives to animal research and are under no obligation
to minimize an animal’s pain, provide a minimum standard of care, or implement
proper euthanasia techniques. Aren’t
research animals already highly regulated? Are there industry standards and
protocols to address any gaps in external regulations?
A: If an
institution receives federal funding from any branch of the Public Health
Service, including NIH, it must file an animal welfare assurance
document with the agency which requires it to adhere to the recommendations
contained in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The Guide
serves as the basis for welfare for all vertebrate biomedical research animals,
and addresses all of the aforementioned concerns. Furthermore, many institutions
and companies using animals in biomedical research are accredited by the Association
for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC),
which uses the Guide as the basis for its accreditation process. FDA and EPA
regulated companies must comply with Good Laboratory Practices. Finally, and most importantly, it's in the
best interests of a research program to insure animals are treated well and
without pain because stressed animals skew research results.
Q: According to ALDF, this legislation
will provide sweeping animal welfare benefits at little cost. Has NABR completed any estimates of the cost
burden should this additional regulation should become law?
A: When this
subject was under debate in 2001, NABR estimated that regulating rats, mice and
birds under the Animal Welfare Act would cost USDA registered research
facilities an additional $84 million annually, in mostly administrative
compliance costs. Facilities that would have been required to register
with USDA for the first time might have spent $80 to $200 million to comply
with all statutory requirements. The USDA APHIS budget would also be impacted –
inspectors’ workload would double or even triple.
Q: There are many steps being taken by
animal rights lawyers to lay the groundwork in courts that test current
requirements for legal standing and push the courts to give animals limited
rights. How would even small changes in
property status affect use of animals in research?
A: The
ultimate goal of many animal rights lawyers is to obtain legal standing for
animals. Changing the property status of animals is the first step in a
long term process aimed at enabling well-funded animal rights organizations to
bring expensive and time-consuming legal actions that would entail potentially
enormous costs. Lawyers filing lawsuits on behalf of animals could
challenge their use in research programs, as pets, in animal sports, in agriculture
and in a multitude of other contexts. While some changes are being pushed for
in the courts, animal rights organizations are simultaneously pursuing legal
rights for animals through federal and state legislation, ballot initiatives
and other means. In fact, just this year a bill was introduced in Massachusetts
that would permit any person to bring a legal action "for the protection
and humane treatment of animals."
Q: The recent panel study report to the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends downsizing chimpanzee
facilities. Will the remaining colony of chimpanzees kept for research fill the
needs for future studies? At one time, weren't chimpanzees the only good model
for certain human HIV research? How did that change? With emerging diseases and resistant
infections, how might the loss of future research animals via regulation impact
the prospect for advances in medical research to alleviate human suffering?
A: Science
is constantly evolving, so animal models change as well. The Institute of Medicine
and an NIH working group have determined that the chimpanzee model is not
necessary for some types of research. It is unclear whether the NIH director
will simply accept the working group’s recommendations or will elaborate on the
future of federal research chimps. Much
was learned about HIV from chimps, but the virus does not make them sick in the
same way as it does people, so they did not prove to be the optimal model. Should there be a disease as devastating as
AIDS in the future, the chimp may prove pivotal to treating and curing the
disease, so it would seem prudent and in the best interest of the public health
to maintain a breeding colony.
Q: Last month SAOVA reported to our
readers that the ALDF website lists the formation of 171 U.S. Student Animal
Legal Defense Chapters. In addition there
are State Bar Animal Law Sections and Committees in 24 states plus the American
Bar Association. Animal Law Courses are
now taught in 144 schools, up from just 9 in 2000. Realistically, the field of animal law
exists for the purpose of changing how animals are viewed in the legal
system. How concerned is the research
community about this rapidly growing field and its potential impact?
A: As the
field of animal law has grown, so have the legal departments and pro bono
networks of sophisticated, well-financed animal rights organizations. It is clear that many animal rights
organizations and animal rights lawyers believe research with animals should be
severely restricted or prohibited. Through
academic scholarship in five animal law journals and law reviews, lawyers and
law students within the animal rights movement have begun to lay the groundwork
and develop new legal theories to grant additional legal protections to
animals, including research animals. Ultimately,
these efforts have the potential to seriously impact life-saving medical and
scientific research. NABR has been
monitoring these developments for some time and has developed an Animal Law
website that provides information tracking law courses, lawsuits, court
decisions as well as the laws and regulations in place to ensure the humane use
of animals in biomedical research. www.nabranimallaw.org/
Q:
We read headlines almost every
day about breakthroughs in research.
Most medical advancements have been dependent upon animal research. What species are most commonly used and why
are these species so useful in biomedical research?
A: Rodents
are, by far, the most common animal model in biomedical research and safety
testing. And these are not your garden
variety rodents. For example, mice
specially bred with specific genetic characteristics are designed for the
disease under study, whether its diabetes, birth defects or obesity. This has
revolutionized medical research and opened many doors to finding new cures for
disease, especially cancer.
Research with dogs, cats, and non-human primates is
necessary to study certain diseases. However, as biomedical research changes
and evolves, the number of these animals used in research has dropped
dramatically over the last several decades.
In fact, these animals account for less than .05 percent of the total
number of lab animals used in research. Several additional species are proving
to be increasingly important animal models, including zebrafish, C. Elegans
(worms) and fruit flies
Q: Human health has obviously benefited
from animal research but animals benefit too through development of vaccines,
cancer treatments, and surgical procedures. What are some of the most exciting
areas of current research?
A: Dr. James
Cook, a researcher at University of Missouri, is developing biological joint
replacements for both people and animals.
Cook has created new cartilage in animals using a biological “scaffold” in
the animals’ joints. This research could do away with metal and plastic joints,
and instead, regenerate a fully functional biologic joint for anyone who needs
one.
Another exciting example of animal research is happening now
at the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota. Doctors have
developed a vaccine for a deadly brain cancer that affects both people and
dogs. Doctors recruit pet owners to enroll their dogs with brain cancer
into a study. After removing the tumor
from a dog’s brain during surgery, the doctors create a cancer vaccine using
that dog’s unique tumor cells. They inject the dog with several rounds of
vaccination and eventually the dog builds up immunity to the cancer. The dog’s
immune cells act like an army to kill the foreign invader, the brain
tumor. This vaccine is extending dogs’ lives dramatically and many dogs
become tumor-free. What the scientists are gleaning from this cancer research
helps not only man’s best friend, but also may help human brain cancer patients
facing a grim prognosis.
Q: Animal Rights Activists who oppose use
of animals in medical testing claim that various testing procedures exist, such
as in vitro cell culture testing and computer simulations, as well as expanded
use of human volunteers for micro dose drug testing, which make the use of
animals in medical research obsolete. What role does the in vivo animal model
fulfill in medical research that cannot be substituted through these other
non-animal protocols?
A: To date,
there is no comprehensive substitute for animal models in research. In certain
areas of study, like toxicology, the number of animals required has dropped
dramatically and been replaced with cell cultures, tissue cultures,
mathematical and other models. These
non-animal methodologies are often much less expensive and faster than animal
models. But for basic and biomedical research, there is a need for a whole,
living system and an animal substitute does not exist.
In order to study something with a computer model you have
to know enough about the disease to put it into a computer. There are so many diseases scientists are
still learning about, particularly diseases of the brain like Alzheimer’s
disease, Parkinson’s disease and autism.
Understanding the underlying mechanisms of the brain must be studied in
a brain. A computer model simply can't
substitute.
It would, of course, be preferable not to use animals for research study, but
simplistic claims that animal research should be obsolete ignores the
complexity of the research process. One
only has to go to a children's cancer ward or a trauma center or have a parent
with Alzheimer's disease to realize medical research has a lot of work to do to
alleviate pain and suffering, and animal models remain our best bet to discover
how to cure disease. When additional non-animal alternatives are developed,
science will naturally reduce the need and use of animal models. This
progression will only happen when viable alternatives exist and are
scientifically validated.
Q: Blum v. Holder is a federal lawsuit
challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as an unconstitutional
infringement on free speech. How is
NABR’s involved in this case?
A: NABR,
joined by eleven other organizations, filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit on
March 12, 2012, explaining the specific Rules of Construction in the law which
expressly exempts constitutionally-protected free speech from the AETA and urging
the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts to find the AETA
constitutional. NABR filed the brief to
ensure the court is aware of the AETA’s importance to the biomedical research
community and make certain that the strongest possible defense is
presented. The brief argues the law is a
measured and important response to threats, intimidation, and economic harm
committed by animal rights extremists against research facilities and
scientists who conduct life-saving research with laboratory animals. During an
August 29, 2012 hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss the case, several
of the points raised by NABR’s brief were argued. NABR, along with many others, is awaiting the
court’s decision.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Sacramento restaurants find loopholes in foie gras ban
Banning foie gras ended up being a boon for its popularity.
The state's July 1 ban on foie gras was supposed to prevent the fatty goose or duck liver from being served at California restaurants. Instead, foie gras has become more popular, and enforcement of the new law has been nearly nonexistent.
Sacramento chefs and others from around California are exposing loopholes in the law, making foie gras fairly easy to find in restaurants despite its blacklisted status. You can find it served at such restaurants as The Kitchen in Sacramento, where foie gras is treated as a complimentary item – not officially for sale and technically, some say, not illegal.
"There's more interest in foie gras now than ever," said Randall Selland, executive chef and owner of The Kitchen. "If you ask to try it, we'll let you have some. It won't be on the menu and there's no extra charge."
Foie gras is produced by force feeding ducks or geese with a funnel and long tube to create an engorged liver, a process known as gavage. Though foie gras has deep roots in France's culinary traditions, gavage has been outlawed in a number of European countries. The California ban was instituted in 2004 with the passage of SB 1520, and given a 7 1/2-year sunset for the law to take effect.
Some California chefs stocked up on foie gras before the ban took effect, with plans to offer it after July 1 as a complimentary item and duck the letter of the law.
"We know what the rules are, but we have enough to last a couple of months," said Selland. "We're waiting to see how this pans out and how it can be done. There's a multitude of ways to do it." Full story at Sacramento Bee
The state's July 1 ban on foie gras was supposed to prevent the fatty goose or duck liver from being served at California restaurants. Instead, foie gras has become more popular, and enforcement of the new law has been nearly nonexistent.
Sacramento chefs and others from around California are exposing loopholes in the law, making foie gras fairly easy to find in restaurants despite its blacklisted status. You can find it served at such restaurants as The Kitchen in Sacramento, where foie gras is treated as a complimentary item – not officially for sale and technically, some say, not illegal.
"There's more interest in foie gras now than ever," said Randall Selland, executive chef and owner of The Kitchen. "If you ask to try it, we'll let you have some. It won't be on the menu and there's no extra charge."
Foie gras is produced by force feeding ducks or geese with a funnel and long tube to create an engorged liver, a process known as gavage. Though foie gras has deep roots in France's culinary traditions, gavage has been outlawed in a number of European countries. The California ban was instituted in 2004 with the passage of SB 1520, and given a 7 1/2-year sunset for the law to take effect.
Some California chefs stocked up on foie gras before the ban took effect, with plans to offer it after July 1 as a complimentary item and duck the letter of the law.
"We know what the rules are, but we have enough to last a couple of months," said Selland. "We're waiting to see how this pans out and how it can be done. There's a multitude of ways to do it." Full story at Sacramento Bee
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Equine Scientists Debunk Horsemeat Health Risk Claims
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 4, 2011
Contacts:
Dave Duquette, info@unitedhorsemensfront.org 541 751 7588
Sue Wallis, sue.wallis52@gmail.com 307 685 8248 (ranch) 307 80 8515 (cell)
Health Risk of Horse Meat is Unsubstantiated
Four prominent equine scientists, Dr. Don Henneke, Phd, Dr. Sheryl King, Phd, PAS, Dr. William Day, Phd and Dr. Patricia Evans, EdD, have written a strongly worded letter to the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology in regards to a February 2010 paper, "Association of phenylbutzone usage in horses bought for slaughter: a public health risk" by Nicholas Dodman, Nicolas Blondeau, and Ann M. Marini, pointing out the unscientific, politically motivated erroneous conclusions of the paper. The letter points out the fallacy of "mixing sound research conducted on humans with unrelated sound research from horses." The clear message of the four equine scientists is that the journal paper's authors "attempt to formulate an unfounded and unsubstantiated conclusion that horsemeat derived from American horses contains residues of phenylbutazone that are harmful to humans. This conclusion is not supported by the research cited or any other research..."
The paper's authors as well as the so-called experts credited with contribution to the article are all linked to extremist animal rights organizations that have been attacking America's farmers and ranchers. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and their animal rights activist cronies continue to try to discredit the animal agriculture industry's commonsense, factual reasoning for the need for humane horse processing in the United States.
"We are heartened that scientists have stepped up to challenge this flagrant attack on the hard working, tax paying horse people of America," says Wyoming state representative, Sue Wallis, one of the leaders of a nationwide grassroots horse industry organization, United Horsemen. "The journal article is penned by scientists and uncredentialed lay people known primarily for their radical animal rights political views."
"Facts are stubborn things;" wrote founding father John Adams, "and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
"Thanks to dedicated scientists insisting on strict adherence to the scientific method," says Dave Duquette, working cow horse trainer and president of United Horsemen, "we have the facts, science, and evidence to disprove this blatant attempt to fool Congress and betray America's farmers and ranchers."
The equine scientists conclude their letter by stating that,
"As equine science Instructors, we strive to present factual information to our students in an unbiased manner. The topic of horse slaughter is controversial and emotional. No horse owner looks forward to making end of life decisions concerning their animals. Humane euthanasia, whether it is done at the veterinarian's facility, the owner's facility, or the slaughter facility, is not an easy decision to make. We believe that the decision should be left up to the individual horse owner. In the current economic climate, the availability of humane euthanasia must remain a viable option for the health of the horse industry. The publication of this obviously biased article by such a reputable source raises real concerns about the value of the peer review process. We trust that future acceptance of articles by Food and Chemical Toxicology concerning the horse will be properly reviewed prior to acceptance and publication."
The letter authors also issued a detailed advisory to Congress regarding the unsubstantiated claims in the journal article, and the evidence for the safety of horsemeat produced from U.S. horses.
October 4, 2011
Contacts:
Dave Duquette, info@unitedhorsemensfront.org 541 751 7588
Sue Wallis, sue.wallis52@gmail.com 307 685 8248 (ranch) 307 80 8515 (cell)
Health Risk of Horse Meat is Unsubstantiated
Four prominent equine scientists, Dr. Don Henneke, Phd, Dr. Sheryl King, Phd, PAS, Dr. William Day, Phd and Dr. Patricia Evans, EdD, have written a strongly worded letter to the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology in regards to a February 2010 paper, "Association of phenylbutzone usage in horses bought for slaughter: a public health risk" by Nicholas Dodman, Nicolas Blondeau, and Ann M. Marini, pointing out the unscientific, politically motivated erroneous conclusions of the paper. The letter points out the fallacy of "mixing sound research conducted on humans with unrelated sound research from horses." The clear message of the four equine scientists is that the journal paper's authors "attempt to formulate an unfounded and unsubstantiated conclusion that horsemeat derived from American horses contains residues of phenylbutazone that are harmful to humans. This conclusion is not supported by the research cited or any other research..."
The paper's authors as well as the so-called experts credited with contribution to the article are all linked to extremist animal rights organizations that have been attacking America's farmers and ranchers. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and their animal rights activist cronies continue to try to discredit the animal agriculture industry's commonsense, factual reasoning for the need for humane horse processing in the United States.
"We are heartened that scientists have stepped up to challenge this flagrant attack on the hard working, tax paying horse people of America," says Wyoming state representative, Sue Wallis, one of the leaders of a nationwide grassroots horse industry organization, United Horsemen. "The journal article is penned by scientists and uncredentialed lay people known primarily for their radical animal rights political views."
"Facts are stubborn things;" wrote founding father John Adams, "and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
"Thanks to dedicated scientists insisting on strict adherence to the scientific method," says Dave Duquette, working cow horse trainer and president of United Horsemen, "we have the facts, science, and evidence to disprove this blatant attempt to fool Congress and betray America's farmers and ranchers."
The equine scientists conclude their letter by stating that,
"As equine science Instructors, we strive to present factual information to our students in an unbiased manner. The topic of horse slaughter is controversial and emotional. No horse owner looks forward to making end of life decisions concerning their animals. Humane euthanasia, whether it is done at the veterinarian's facility, the owner's facility, or the slaughter facility, is not an easy decision to make. We believe that the decision should be left up to the individual horse owner. In the current economic climate, the availability of humane euthanasia must remain a viable option for the health of the horse industry. The publication of this obviously biased article by such a reputable source raises real concerns about the value of the peer review process. We trust that future acceptance of articles by Food and Chemical Toxicology concerning the horse will be properly reviewed prior to acceptance and publication."
The letter authors also issued a detailed advisory to Congress regarding the unsubstantiated claims in the journal article, and the evidence for the safety of horsemeat produced from U.S. horses.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Animal rights activist charged with trespassing at UF
By Nathan Crabbe, Staff writer, The Gainsville Sun
Published: Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.
An animal rights activist has been charged with trespassing in a University of Florida building where she allegedly posted fliers offering a reward for information about students who experiment on animals.
Lisa Ann Grossman, 50, of Jacksonville, had been issued a trespass warning for a protest in December inside a fundraiser at UF’s Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. The warning barred Grossman, a member of the animal rights group Negotiation is Over, from the UF campus for three years.
She is accused of violating that warning July 9 by entering the UF Cancer/Genetics Research Complex to post about 100 fliers. The fliers offer $100 in cash for personal information such as the name, picture, address or phone number of any student learning to experiment with animals.
The State Attorney’s Office last week filed a trespassing charge against Grossman. The second-degree misdemeanor is punishable by as many as 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Grossman couldn’t be reached for comment Monday.
UF police allege that someone let Grossman into the locked cancer and genetics building to post the fliers. A Health Science Center official subsequently warned employees against admitting strangers to locked facilities and encouraged them to contact police to report suspicious persons.
Negotiation is Over previously has put the addresses and phone numbers of UF faculty researchers on its website over claims they conducted animal research. The website describes a campaign involving students as a way to show them that animal research can result in “car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear.”
Contact Nathan Crabbe at 338-3176 or nathan.crabbe@gvillesun.com.
Published: Monday, August 1, 2011 at 3:44 p.m.
An animal rights activist has been charged with trespassing in a University of Florida building where she allegedly posted fliers offering a reward for information about students who experiment on animals.
Lisa Ann Grossman, 50, of Jacksonville, had been issued a trespass warning for a protest in December inside a fundraiser at UF’s Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. The warning barred Grossman, a member of the animal rights group Negotiation is Over, from the UF campus for three years.
She is accused of violating that warning July 9 by entering the UF Cancer/Genetics Research Complex to post about 100 fliers. The fliers offer $100 in cash for personal information such as the name, picture, address or phone number of any student learning to experiment with animals.
The State Attorney’s Office last week filed a trespassing charge against Grossman. The second-degree misdemeanor is punishable by as many as 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Grossman couldn’t be reached for comment Monday.
UF police allege that someone let Grossman into the locked cancer and genetics building to post the fliers. A Health Science Center official subsequently warned employees against admitting strangers to locked facilities and encouraged them to contact police to report suspicious persons.
Negotiation is Over previously has put the addresses and phone numbers of UF faculty researchers on its website over claims they conducted animal research. The website describes a campaign involving students as a way to show them that animal research can result in “car bombs, 24/7 security cameras, embarrassing home demonstrations, threats, injuries, and fear.”
Contact Nathan Crabbe at 338-3176 or nathan.crabbe@gvillesun.com.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Oregon Congressman David Wu resigns
Oregon Congressman David Wu (D-1) resigned today amid new emerging scandal and calls for him to step down from office. Long time animal rights supporter, Wu had received 100 percent ratings from the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI); Defenders of Wildlife; and Big Cat Rescue. From 2009-2010 Wu missed a perfect score of 100 from HSUS/Humane Society Legislative Fund for failing to endorse the ban on chimps in research. Wu received the HSLF Human Advocate Award in 2006.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Michigan Rep. Dale Kildee to retire
Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) will not seek reelection, the congressman announced earlier this month. Kildee has served 18 terms in office. HSUS has honored Kildee with multiple awards from 2006-2010 for his consistent perfect scores of 100 on the organization's Humane Scorecard.
Upon receiving the HSUS Humane Advocate award in 2008, Kildee issued the following press release:
"I am grateful to receive this award, but the real thanks goes to the Humane Society for more than fifty years of dedicated service," Congressman Kildee said. "I fully endorse the mission and achievements of the Humane Society and the protection of animals from abuse, cruelty and neglect will remain among my top priorities as I cast my vote."
Upon receiving the HSUS Humane Advocate award in 2008, Kildee issued the following press release:
"I am grateful to receive this award, but the real thanks goes to the Humane Society for more than fifty years of dedicated service," Congressman Kildee said. "I fully endorse the mission and achievements of the Humane Society and the protection of animals from abuse, cruelty and neglect will remain among my top priorities as I cast my vote."
Friday, July 8, 2011
United Egg Producers- HSUS agreement
From Keith Good at FarmPolicy.com, Inc.
William Neuman reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two groups that are usually squawking at each other — egg farmers and animal welfare advocates — announced an unusual agreement on Thursday to work together to seek a federal law that would require larger cages and other improved conditions for the nation’s 280 million laying hens.
“The deal comes after the egg industry has been put increasingly on the defensive. Animal welfare groups have clandestinely recorded videos showing poor conditions on farms, and various states have sought to set more humane standards for hens. Egg producers have also been struggling to improve their image after tainted eggs from several farms in Iowa sickened thousands of people in a nationwide salmonella outbreak last year.
“The agreement was announced by the nation’s main egg industry group, the United Egg Producers, which represents farmers who own about 80 percent of the nation’s laying hens, and the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization.”
The Times article added that, “The groups said they would ask Congress to pass a law enacting the new standards, which they said would be the first federal law addressing the treatment of farm animals and would pre-empt efforts in several states to set their own standards.
“The proposed federal standards would include cages that give hens up to 144 square inches of space each, compared with the 67 square inches that most hens have today. They would also include so-called habitat enrichments, like perches, scratching areas and nesting areas, that allow the birds to express natural behavior.”
Mr. Neuman indicated that, “In a statement Thursday, the National Pork Producers Council said that a federal law regulating living conditions for hens ‘would set a dangerous precedent for allowing the federal government to dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals.’
“Robert L. Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, acknowledged the difficulties ahead.
“‘That’s part of what we have to do, as United Egg Producers, is talk with these other groups and hopefully get them to see our point of view,’ said Mr. Krouse, an Indiana egg farmer. ‘We understand their concerns, but this is about egg producers, this is a solution that we’ve found for us.’”
Today’s article noted that, “A federal law would be intended to pre-empt state laws. But the groups said it would have to include a faster transition timetable for California egg farmers to match the schedule approved in the ballot measure there, which requires larger cages by 2015.”
A statement yesterday from Arnie Riebli, the President of the Association of California Egg Farmers indicated that:
“While we are still in the process of reviewing today’s agreement between HSUS and the United Egg Producers, we welcome the recognition by HSUS that the enriched colony system is a suitable hen habitat. California’s egg farmers have long advocated the use of an enriched colony system as a superior living area for hens.
“At the same time, we are very disappointed that California is not being treated equally as the other 49 states. While the rest of the nation’s egg producers have until 2029 to spend an estimated five billion dollars necessary to comply with this agreement, California egg farmers must comply by 2015.”
Philip Brasher, writing yesterday at his new FoodWatch Blog, reported that, “The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn’t want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as ‘enriched colony’ housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.
“There’s a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn’t pass, ‘then the agreement would be off and we’d be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact,’ HSUS’ Paul Shapiro told me.”
And the AP reported yesterday that, “Threatened with a series of state laws cracking down on cramped cages, the egg industry on Thursday said it would agree to seek federal regulation to improve conditions for egg-laying hens.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Statement Of National Pork Producers Council
Feedstuffs. HSUS, UEP reach agreement to transition to colonies
Brownfield. HSUS, United Egg agree on federal standards
Brownfield. NPPC president says federal standard bad idea
Better housing for hens may mean higher prices for eggs
William Neuman reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two groups that are usually squawking at each other — egg farmers and animal welfare advocates — announced an unusual agreement on Thursday to work together to seek a federal law that would require larger cages and other improved conditions for the nation’s 280 million laying hens.
“The deal comes after the egg industry has been put increasingly on the defensive. Animal welfare groups have clandestinely recorded videos showing poor conditions on farms, and various states have sought to set more humane standards for hens. Egg producers have also been struggling to improve their image after tainted eggs from several farms in Iowa sickened thousands of people in a nationwide salmonella outbreak last year.
“The agreement was announced by the nation’s main egg industry group, the United Egg Producers, which represents farmers who own about 80 percent of the nation’s laying hens, and the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization.”
The Times article added that, “The groups said they would ask Congress to pass a law enacting the new standards, which they said would be the first federal law addressing the treatment of farm animals and would pre-empt efforts in several states to set their own standards.
“The proposed federal standards would include cages that give hens up to 144 square inches of space each, compared with the 67 square inches that most hens have today. They would also include so-called habitat enrichments, like perches, scratching areas and nesting areas, that allow the birds to express natural behavior.”
Mr. Neuman indicated that, “In a statement Thursday, the National Pork Producers Council said that a federal law regulating living conditions for hens ‘would set a dangerous precedent for allowing the federal government to dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals.’
“Robert L. Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, acknowledged the difficulties ahead.
“‘That’s part of what we have to do, as United Egg Producers, is talk with these other groups and hopefully get them to see our point of view,’ said Mr. Krouse, an Indiana egg farmer. ‘We understand their concerns, but this is about egg producers, this is a solution that we’ve found for us.’”
Today’s article noted that, “A federal law would be intended to pre-empt state laws. But the groups said it would have to include a faster transition timetable for California egg farmers to match the schedule approved in the ballot measure there, which requires larger cages by 2015.”
A statement yesterday from Arnie Riebli, the President of the Association of California Egg Farmers indicated that:
“While we are still in the process of reviewing today’s agreement between HSUS and the United Egg Producers, we welcome the recognition by HSUS that the enriched colony system is a suitable hen habitat. California’s egg farmers have long advocated the use of an enriched colony system as a superior living area for hens.
“At the same time, we are very disappointed that California is not being treated equally as the other 49 states. While the rest of the nation’s egg producers have until 2029 to spend an estimated five billion dollars necessary to comply with this agreement, California egg farmers must comply by 2015.”
Philip Brasher, writing yesterday at his new FoodWatch Blog, reported that, “The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn’t want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as ‘enriched colony’ housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.
“There’s a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn’t pass, ‘then the agreement would be off and we’d be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact,’ HSUS’ Paul Shapiro told me.”
And the AP reported yesterday that, “Threatened with a series of state laws cracking down on cramped cages, the egg industry on Thursday said it would agree to seek federal regulation to improve conditions for egg-laying hens.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Statement Of National Pork Producers Council
Feedstuffs. HSUS, UEP reach agreement to transition to colonies
Brownfield. HSUS, United Egg agree on federal standards
Brownfield. NPPC president says federal standard bad idea
Better housing for hens may mean higher prices for eggs
Sunday, May 29, 2011
ALDF Lawsuit against Woodland Park Zoo dismissed
By Michael Simeona
MyNorthwest.com Editor
A lawsuit filed against the Woodland Park Zoo and city of Seattle for the treatment of elephants was dismissed by King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey on Friday.
Activists from the Animal Legal Defense Fund argued that the city of Seattle was acting illegally in providing support for the Woodland Park Zoo because of its treatment of elephants.
Judge Heavey dismissed the suit because the group had no standing to sue the city, and there was nothing illegal about the city's funding of the zoo.
"We are very pleased with the ruling," said Zoo President and CEO Dr. Deborah Jensen. "This was an attempt to get a court to decide issues of elephant care and medicine that have been appropriately delegated to experts - at our zoo and at other zoos around the country." Full story at link
MyNorthwest.com Editor
A lawsuit filed against the Woodland Park Zoo and city of Seattle for the treatment of elephants was dismissed by King County Superior Court Judge Michael Heavey on Friday.
Activists from the Animal Legal Defense Fund argued that the city of Seattle was acting illegally in providing support for the Woodland Park Zoo because of its treatment of elephants.
Judge Heavey dismissed the suit because the group had no standing to sue the city, and there was nothing illegal about the city's funding of the zoo.
"We are very pleased with the ruling," said Zoo President and CEO Dr. Deborah Jensen. "This was an attempt to get a court to decide issues of elephant care and medicine that have been appropriately delegated to experts - at our zoo and at other zoos around the country." Full story at link
Friday, April 22, 2011
Farmers rally for, as HSUS protests, dog bill
April 21, 2011 by Tom Steever
Organizers say over 1,000 people gathered Wednesday on the Missouri Capitol lawn to show support for legislation making changes to the controversial Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill passed by voters last fall.
Flanked by Missouri House and Senate members favoring the changes, several spoke supporting Senate Bill 113 that’s been passed but is awaiting Governor Jay Nixon’s signature. Clarence, Missouri, pork producer Chris Chinn told the crowd she’s concerned that the Humane Society of United States, which supports and financed the ballot initiative, will not stop with limiting the number of dogs allowed in a breeding operation.
“They’re going to take our farms from us and they’re going to take our jobs and they are going to steal my children’s future,” said Chinn Wednesday, from the podium on the Capitol steps.
Rally organizer Don Nikodim, head of the Missouri Pork Producers Association and with the Missouri Farmers Care coalition says the turnout will help decision makers still on the fence about compromise legislation.
Full story at Brownfield Ag
Organizers say over 1,000 people gathered Wednesday on the Missouri Capitol lawn to show support for legislation making changes to the controversial Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill passed by voters last fall.
Flanked by Missouri House and Senate members favoring the changes, several spoke supporting Senate Bill 113 that’s been passed but is awaiting Governor Jay Nixon’s signature. Clarence, Missouri, pork producer Chris Chinn told the crowd she’s concerned that the Humane Society of United States, which supports and financed the ballot initiative, will not stop with limiting the number of dogs allowed in a breeding operation.
“They’re going to take our farms from us and they’re going to take our jobs and they are going to steal my children’s future,” said Chinn Wednesday, from the podium on the Capitol steps.
Rally organizer Don Nikodim, head of the Missouri Pork Producers Association and with the Missouri Farmers Care coalition says the turnout will help decision makers still on the fence about compromise legislation.
Full story at Brownfield Ag
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Nebraska to HSUS: No deal
Feedstuffs December 16 2010 by Rod Smith
Neb. Gov. Dave Heineman has laid out his position on any effort by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to change agricultural practices in Nebraska: "No compromise, no deal."
In an interview, he said HSUS "is anti-agriculture and out to destroy animal agriculture," and if the organization tries to do in Nebraska what it has done in other states, it will be "in for a fight."
HSUS has increased its presence in Nebraska in recent weeks, with chief executive officer and president Wayne Pacelle conducting a town hall meeting and retaining a state coordinator.
Neb. Gov. Dave Heineman has laid out his position on any effort by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to change agricultural practices in Nebraska: "No compromise, no deal."
In an interview, he said HSUS "is anti-agriculture and out to destroy animal agriculture," and if the organization tries to do in Nebraska what it has done in other states, it will be "in for a fight."
HSUS has increased its presence in Nebraska in recent weeks, with chief executive officer and president Wayne Pacelle conducting a town hall meeting and retaining a state coordinator.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
NJ's first bear hunt in five years is set to go on as planned
Sunday, November 28, 2010 BY TARA KOLTON
Staff Writer North Jersey.com
New Jersey’s first bear hunt in five years is just a week away and set to go on as planned despite a last-ditch effort by several animal rights organizations to have the hunt postponed.
On Monday, Nov. 22, State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bob Martin rejected an appeal made by the Animal Protection League of New Jersey (APLNJ) and the West Milford-based Bear Education and Resource (BEAR) Group to postpone the six-day hunt, scheduled for a seven-county region that includes parts of Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Passaic, Morris, Somerset and Bergen counties. The bear hunt, set to take place from Dec. 6 to 11, is authorized under the state’s recently adopted Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (CBBMP).
"The facts are clear, we have an overpopulation of black bears in New Jersey, and we must address that issue," said Martin in a press statement. "A regulated black bear hunt is one important and necessary tool to deal with the growing number of bears, as part of the state’s overall, comprehensive approach to managing its black bear population."
The DEP estimates that the black bear population for the portion of New Jersey north of Interstate 80 is approximately 3,400 animals, which signifies a marked rise from fewer than 500 in the mid-1990s. Bears have also been reported in all 21 counties, with a corresponding rise in bear complaints.
Martin, responding to a Nov. 17 written request by the APLNJ and the BEAR Group to postpone the hunt, also emphasized "the accuracy of the DEP’s data on bear complaints and bear-human encounters caused by the increasing black bear population, despite contrary public claims of inflated numbers made by Rutgers chemistry professor Edward Tavss," according to the DEP’s Monday statement.
The 2010 Tavss study the DEP is referring to was completed over five months by Tavss, who says he utilized 4,700 records obtained by the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) through the Open Public Records Act. Tavss concluded that "contrary to what the DFW claims, bear nuisance complaints in NJ have significantly declined," according to the Oct. 4 release of the study’s findings. In particular, he claims that a duplication of bear complaints resulted in the DEP and DFW’s allegedly "inflated" bear complaint numbers.
Martin said that a thorough review of bear complaints for 2008 and 2009 by the DEP’s Office of Audit showed "virtually no duplication of complaint reports and verified the accuracy of the information provided in the CBBMP." He said that the audit showed that fewer than 1 percent of about 3,000 bear complaints registered by the DEP in each of those years may have resulted from duplication of information.
"I have reviewed your request and I find that it does not provide any basis to stay the hunt, nor does it raise any legitimate questions about the inclusion of the black bear hunt in the state’s CBBMP," wrote Martin.
The commissioner stressed that the DEP is gathering "more and better information on black bears, providing a valuable resource that contributes to the department’s black bear management efforts."
Commissioner Martin denied the request to stay the hunt after consulting with New Jersey Fish and Game Council (FGC) Acting Chairwoman Jeanette Vreeland, who also was petitioned to postpone the hunt. Vreeland concurred with Martin, but noted a vote of the full FGC which adopted the CBBMP in July, is required to formalize her position. A telephone meeting of the council will soon be held to deal with that issue, according to Vreeland.
Full story ..
Related Stories:
Press Release. DEP Rejects Request to Postpone Bear Hunt
NJ Bear Hunt. NJ Bear Overpopulation Issues
Staff Writer North Jersey.com
New Jersey’s first bear hunt in five years is just a week away and set to go on as planned despite a last-ditch effort by several animal rights organizations to have the hunt postponed.
On Monday, Nov. 22, State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner Bob Martin rejected an appeal made by the Animal Protection League of New Jersey (APLNJ) and the West Milford-based Bear Education and Resource (BEAR) Group to postpone the six-day hunt, scheduled for a seven-county region that includes parts of Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Passaic, Morris, Somerset and Bergen counties. The bear hunt, set to take place from Dec. 6 to 11, is authorized under the state’s recently adopted Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy (CBBMP).
"The facts are clear, we have an overpopulation of black bears in New Jersey, and we must address that issue," said Martin in a press statement. "A regulated black bear hunt is one important and necessary tool to deal with the growing number of bears, as part of the state’s overall, comprehensive approach to managing its black bear population."
The DEP estimates that the black bear population for the portion of New Jersey north of Interstate 80 is approximately 3,400 animals, which signifies a marked rise from fewer than 500 in the mid-1990s. Bears have also been reported in all 21 counties, with a corresponding rise in bear complaints.
Martin, responding to a Nov. 17 written request by the APLNJ and the BEAR Group to postpone the hunt, also emphasized "the accuracy of the DEP’s data on bear complaints and bear-human encounters caused by the increasing black bear population, despite contrary public claims of inflated numbers made by Rutgers chemistry professor Edward Tavss," according to the DEP’s Monday statement.
The 2010 Tavss study the DEP is referring to was completed over five months by Tavss, who says he utilized 4,700 records obtained by the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) through the Open Public Records Act. Tavss concluded that "contrary to what the DFW claims, bear nuisance complaints in NJ have significantly declined," according to the Oct. 4 release of the study’s findings. In particular, he claims that a duplication of bear complaints resulted in the DEP and DFW’s allegedly "inflated" bear complaint numbers.
Martin said that a thorough review of bear complaints for 2008 and 2009 by the DEP’s Office of Audit showed "virtually no duplication of complaint reports and verified the accuracy of the information provided in the CBBMP." He said that the audit showed that fewer than 1 percent of about 3,000 bear complaints registered by the DEP in each of those years may have resulted from duplication of information.
"I have reviewed your request and I find that it does not provide any basis to stay the hunt, nor does it raise any legitimate questions about the inclusion of the black bear hunt in the state’s CBBMP," wrote Martin.
The commissioner stressed that the DEP is gathering "more and better information on black bears, providing a valuable resource that contributes to the department’s black bear management efforts."
Commissioner Martin denied the request to stay the hunt after consulting with New Jersey Fish and Game Council (FGC) Acting Chairwoman Jeanette Vreeland, who also was petitioned to postpone the hunt. Vreeland concurred with Martin, but noted a vote of the full FGC which adopted the CBBMP in July, is required to formalize her position. A telephone meeting of the council will soon be held to deal with that issue, according to Vreeland.
Full story ..
Related Stories:
Press Release. DEP Rejects Request to Postpone Bear Hunt
NJ Bear Hunt. NJ Bear Overpopulation Issues
Thursday, November 25, 2010
HSUS reaches for soft drink cash
Brownfield Ag Network
By Tom Steever November 19, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States is taking advantage of social media to raise money. The animal rights organization leads in polling on the online Pepsi Refresh Project. The project solicits ideas that are voted on by Facebook users and the top 32 vote getters each month receive grants ranging from $5,000 to $250 thousand.
“Why shouldn’t HSUS pony up to the trough; that’s really what they’re good at is raising money,” says David Martosko, with the Center for Consumer Freedom, which applies pressure to HSUS through its HumaneWatch.org website. Martosko contends that less than one percent of the funds raised by HSUS are used to shelter animals.
“I think it’s wonderful that we live in a country where people want to help animals, but I think it’s disgusting when activist groups redirect that money in a way that doesn’t reflect the donor’s intent,” says Martosko.
HSUS is an effective fund raiser. The group solicits donations using among other methods, two-minute television spots featuring pictures of seemingly suffering animals. The message the organization conveys is that donations can help these animals. Some of the money raised is used to promote passage of ballot initiatives that affect animal agriculture, and in the case of Missouri this past election cycle, dog breeders.
Martosko believes the last has not yet been heard from HSUS on Missouri’s Proposition B, which narrowly-passed. The measure limits to 50 the number of dogs a breeder can maintain.
“Their goal is to start with that 50-dog limit and then ratchet it down, and ratchet it down, and ratchet it down again until nobody can breed dogs. That’s what they want,” says Martosko. “And if you don’t care about that that’s fine, but now delete dogs and insert cows. Now do you care about it?”
By Tom Steever November 19, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States is taking advantage of social media to raise money. The animal rights organization leads in polling on the online Pepsi Refresh Project. The project solicits ideas that are voted on by Facebook users and the top 32 vote getters each month receive grants ranging from $5,000 to $250 thousand.
“Why shouldn’t HSUS pony up to the trough; that’s really what they’re good at is raising money,” says David Martosko, with the Center for Consumer Freedom, which applies pressure to HSUS through its HumaneWatch.org website. Martosko contends that less than one percent of the funds raised by HSUS are used to shelter animals.
“I think it’s wonderful that we live in a country where people want to help animals, but I think it’s disgusting when activist groups redirect that money in a way that doesn’t reflect the donor’s intent,” says Martosko.
HSUS is an effective fund raiser. The group solicits donations using among other methods, two-minute television spots featuring pictures of seemingly suffering animals. The message the organization conveys is that donations can help these animals. Some of the money raised is used to promote passage of ballot initiatives that affect animal agriculture, and in the case of Missouri this past election cycle, dog breeders.
Martosko believes the last has not yet been heard from HSUS on Missouri’s Proposition B, which narrowly-passed. The measure limits to 50 the number of dogs a breeder can maintain.
“Their goal is to start with that 50-dog limit and then ratchet it down, and ratchet it down, and ratchet it down again until nobody can breed dogs. That’s what they want,” says Martosko. “And if you don’t care about that that’s fine, but now delete dogs and insert cows. Now do you care about it?”
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
HSUS to release another ‘egg farm’ video
November 16, 2010 by Ken Anderson - Brownfield Ag News
The Humane Society of the United States is preparing to release another undercover video, this one involving what HSUS calls “a major egg producer in Texas.”
The animal rights organization has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday at which the video footage will be released. HSUS says the footage will show, what it calls, “inhumane and filthy conditions” and “appalling suffering” at the Texas egg farm.
HSUS says it will also discuss, quote, “critically-needed reforms in animal agribusiness to reduce cruelty and improve food safety.”
The Humane Society of the United States is preparing to release another undercover video, this one involving what HSUS calls “a major egg producer in Texas.”
The animal rights organization has scheduled a news conference for Wednesday at which the video footage will be released. HSUS says the footage will show, what it calls, “inhumane and filthy conditions” and “appalling suffering” at the Texas egg farm.
HSUS says it will also discuss, quote, “critically-needed reforms in animal agribusiness to reduce cruelty and improve food safety.”
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Vote ‘No’ on Proposition B
Millions of dollars from outside the state are being spent by HSUS to try to convince people to vote for Proposition B. Here’s hoping Missourians reject their message.
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:00 am
By Paul Campbell paulc@buffaloreflex.com
The Buffalo Reflex doesn’t endorse candidates, but this doesn’t mean I can’t write an opinion column on issues facing Missouri voters on Nov. 3. One of those is Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
This ballot initiative would establish new restrictions on the state’s dog breeders, in addition to those regulations already placed on them. What’s more, the motives of some of its proponents, the Humane Society of the United States, is greatly in question.
Two factors alone would cause me to vote against Proposition B. One is that under the proposal no breeder would be allowed to have more than 50 dogs in a facility. This is an arbitrary and unfair figure, penalizing the many good breeders who have more dogs than that.
This segment of the proposition causes me to question the motives of the proponents of the bill. Such a regulation would be similar to a rule that would require farmers to have no more than 10 cows or no more than 12 hogs. Agricultural organizations in the state believe that HSUS’s ultimate goal is to limit the number of farm animals or eliminate them altogether.
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent of Proposition B, put it this way, “The ballot being proposed would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish.”
Full story at Buffalo Reflex.com
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:00 am
By Paul Campbell paulc@buffaloreflex.com
The Buffalo Reflex doesn’t endorse candidates, but this doesn’t mean I can’t write an opinion column on issues facing Missouri voters on Nov. 3. One of those is Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
This ballot initiative would establish new restrictions on the state’s dog breeders, in addition to those regulations already placed on them. What’s more, the motives of some of its proponents, the Humane Society of the United States, is greatly in question.
Two factors alone would cause me to vote against Proposition B. One is that under the proposal no breeder would be allowed to have more than 50 dogs in a facility. This is an arbitrary and unfair figure, penalizing the many good breeders who have more dogs than that.
This segment of the proposition causes me to question the motives of the proponents of the bill. Such a regulation would be similar to a rule that would require farmers to have no more than 10 cows or no more than 12 hogs. Agricultural organizations in the state believe that HSUS’s ultimate goal is to limit the number of farm animals or eliminate them altogether.
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent of Proposition B, put it this way, “The ballot being proposed would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish.”
Full story at Buffalo Reflex.com
Monday, October 25, 2010
MO: Proposition B not the right answer to problem
By Robin Nuttall October 22, 2010
COLUMBIA — In November, Missourians will get a chance to vote on Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
For most of us, “puppy mill” conjures images of shivering, emaciated, matted dogs standing in their own filth, terrified of people, bereft of the most basic necessities, socialization and care. None of us want puppy mills in Missouri, and for those of us involved in dogs — as I have been for over 25 years as a trainer, exhibitor, local and national club member and instructor — it’s a passion and a vocation to try to eliminate them. So why would I oppose this bill?
There are several reasons.
Our existing laws are better. Misssouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act is more clear, detailed, specific and typically more stringent than Proposition B.
Prop. B covers only breeders. ACFA covers “any person or organization operating an animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, pound or dog pound, or acting as a dealer, commercial breeder, intermediate handler or exhibitor in Missouri.” Violating Prop. B will be a Class C Misdemeanor. ACFA starts right out with a Class A Misdemeanor, which is up to a year in jail and up to $20,000 fine. To see a detailed side-by-side comparison, click here.
Proposition B punishes legitimate breeders. Prop. B caps the total of intact dogs to be owned by any breeder at 50, the inference being that no one can adequately care for more than 50 dogs. I mean, that’s a lot, right? Who has the time and energy to take care of all those animals? But the bill's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, is confining its proposed legislation to breeders. What about kennels, rescues, shelters, humane societies and pet shops? If you’re going to say that 50 is too many dogs, it should apply to them, too, right? So this really isn’t about numbers of dogs, it’s about punishing breeders.
Full commentary at link:
COLUMBIA — In November, Missourians will get a chance to vote on Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
For most of us, “puppy mill” conjures images of shivering, emaciated, matted dogs standing in their own filth, terrified of people, bereft of the most basic necessities, socialization and care. None of us want puppy mills in Missouri, and for those of us involved in dogs — as I have been for over 25 years as a trainer, exhibitor, local and national club member and instructor — it’s a passion and a vocation to try to eliminate them. So why would I oppose this bill?
There are several reasons.
Our existing laws are better. Misssouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act is more clear, detailed, specific and typically more stringent than Proposition B.
Prop. B covers only breeders. ACFA covers “any person or organization operating an animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, pound or dog pound, or acting as a dealer, commercial breeder, intermediate handler or exhibitor in Missouri.” Violating Prop. B will be a Class C Misdemeanor. ACFA starts right out with a Class A Misdemeanor, which is up to a year in jail and up to $20,000 fine. To see a detailed side-by-side comparison, click here.
Proposition B punishes legitimate breeders. Prop. B caps the total of intact dogs to be owned by any breeder at 50, the inference being that no one can adequately care for more than 50 dogs. I mean, that’s a lot, right? Who has the time and energy to take care of all those animals? But the bill's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, is confining its proposed legislation to breeders. What about kennels, rescues, shelters, humane societies and pet shops? If you’re going to say that 50 is too many dogs, it should apply to them, too, right? So this really isn’t about numbers of dogs, it’s about punishing breeders.
Full commentary at link:
Time to swing for the fences
The problem with our nation today isn't with what people know; it is that too much of what they know isn't so. Whether it is a protester at the front gate or a longtime teacher, we must be transparent. We must explain exactly how it is and hide nothing.
By TRENT LOOS Posted on: 10.22.2010
I had hoped for a grand slam but probably only got a single instead. I was in San Francisco, Cal., where the Giants baseball team was attempting to go onto the World Series.
However, I am actually not talking about baseball at all. I am referring to putting the "cow" back into Cow Palace.
Seth Daulton called me last spring and asked if I would be willing to help bring the emphasis on the cow back to the Grand National Livestock Show & Rodeo.
On the first night of the event, I was in the administration office when the call came over the radio that protesters were at the front gate. Without hesitation, I went to monitor the situation, and what I saw was extremely interesting.
The thing that impressed me most was the manner in which the situation was handled. As general manager Joe Barkett told me, "We have plenty of practice dealing with protesters."
Still, it really hit me that you must maintain your composure, grant the protestors the opportunity to say their spiel yet establish a set of guidelines they must follow. Each of the eight protesters who showed up in opposition to the rodeo were handed a piece of paper with the guidelines they would be expected to follow.
One key thing about these protesters is that they were seeking to intimidate, pure and simple. They had cameras rolling on rodeo management just hoping to catch someone making a mistake.
I thought I would attempt to turn the table on that, so I took out my camera and microphone to interview the lead protester. The minute I turned on my camera, they put three cameras on me and made it look like a video camera duel at the front gate of the Cow Palace. Full commentary
By TRENT LOOS Posted on: 10.22.2010
I had hoped for a grand slam but probably only got a single instead. I was in San Francisco, Cal., where the Giants baseball team was attempting to go onto the World Series.
However, I am actually not talking about baseball at all. I am referring to putting the "cow" back into Cow Palace.
Seth Daulton called me last spring and asked if I would be willing to help bring the emphasis on the cow back to the Grand National Livestock Show & Rodeo.
On the first night of the event, I was in the administration office when the call came over the radio that protesters were at the front gate. Without hesitation, I went to monitor the situation, and what I saw was extremely interesting.
The thing that impressed me most was the manner in which the situation was handled. As general manager Joe Barkett told me, "We have plenty of practice dealing with protesters."
Still, it really hit me that you must maintain your composure, grant the protestors the opportunity to say their spiel yet establish a set of guidelines they must follow. Each of the eight protesters who showed up in opposition to the rodeo were handed a piece of paper with the guidelines they would be expected to follow.
One key thing about these protesters is that they were seeking to intimidate, pure and simple. They had cameras rolling on rodeo management just hoping to catch someone making a mistake.
I thought I would attempt to turn the table on that, so I took out my camera and microphone to interview the lead protester. The minute I turned on my camera, they put three cameras on me and made it look like a video camera duel at the front gate of the Cow Palace. Full commentary
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Missouri Prop B Opposed by Agricultural Business Council
Kansas City Agricultural Business Council is latest to join in opposition of Missouri dog breeding regulation ballot initiative.
Missouri Ruralist. Compiled by staff
Published: Oct 15, 2010
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City is officially on record in opposition to Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated state statute.
"Missouri currently has stringent laws, regulations and reporting systems in place to prevent animal abuse," said the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City. Proposition B adds to that litany of regulations, but does nothing to provide resources for enforcement. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association as well as the American Kennel Club join the Council in opposition.
The council feels that Proposition B, slated to appear on the November ballot, is a misleading attempt to further the animal rights agenda promoted by activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States. The Council said the initiative targets the already heavily regulated family owned professional kennels, which are inspected and licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, and if passed, it means more big government, more bureaucracy and more unfunded mandates on the private business owners. Prop B is also an attempt by HSUS to limit the number of animals someone can own.
"HSUS, who has reportedly already invested over $2 million in the Prop B effort, is a multi-million-dollar factory fundraising machine that runs such misleading campaigns under the false guise of cute puppies and kittens," says Don Nikodim, chairman of Missourians for Animal Care. "They have no connection to our local shelters and unfortunately have no interest in solutions. In their own words, the ultimate goal of HSUS is to end animal agriculture. Bottom line – Washington D.C. factory fundraisers like HSUS, who according to HumaneWatch actually spends less than half of one percent of their $100M plus budget for hands on animal care, shouldn't be telling Missourians how to run our businesses."
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City joins with the St Louis Agri-Business Club, the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and Missourians for Animal Care to oppose Prop B.
Missouri Ruralist. Compiled by staff
Published: Oct 15, 2010
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City is officially on record in opposition to Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated state statute.
"Missouri currently has stringent laws, regulations and reporting systems in place to prevent animal abuse," said the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City. Proposition B adds to that litany of regulations, but does nothing to provide resources for enforcement. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association as well as the American Kennel Club join the Council in opposition.
The council feels that Proposition B, slated to appear on the November ballot, is a misleading attempt to further the animal rights agenda promoted by activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States. The Council said the initiative targets the already heavily regulated family owned professional kennels, which are inspected and licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, and if passed, it means more big government, more bureaucracy and more unfunded mandates on the private business owners. Prop B is also an attempt by HSUS to limit the number of animals someone can own.
"HSUS, who has reportedly already invested over $2 million in the Prop B effort, is a multi-million-dollar factory fundraising machine that runs such misleading campaigns under the false guise of cute puppies and kittens," says Don Nikodim, chairman of Missourians for Animal Care. "They have no connection to our local shelters and unfortunately have no interest in solutions. In their own words, the ultimate goal of HSUS is to end animal agriculture. Bottom line – Washington D.C. factory fundraisers like HSUS, who according to HumaneWatch actually spends less than half of one percent of their $100M plus budget for hands on animal care, shouldn't be telling Missourians how to run our businesses."
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City joins with the St Louis Agri-Business Club, the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and Missourians for Animal Care to oppose Prop B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
