HighestWelfare.Humane.Assured.GoodPractices.Vegetarian. Regenerative.Flexitarian.Lies...
What is the difference between No Welfare, High Welfare, and Highest Welfare when they all require animals to die? Only human comfort, NONE protect the actual animals. The most humane, ethical, and honest Webster-defined "welfare" is NOT exploiting animals - not using, not wearing, not eating, not killing - animals. The only meaningful position is vegan, everything else is just how humans euphemize animals' required suffering and violent deaths: no human exploits animals because they honestly believe that NOT exploiting animals is UNethical or INhumane.
No cruelty is acceptable ... please reject all exploitation.
Please click on and sign/send: Please pull your sponsorship of the 2011 Iditarod
Previous: Whistler employee told to shoot 70 sled dogs in post-Olympic cull
From: ALDF
The 2011 Iditarod starts on March 5.
Please help ALDF speak out for sled dogs. Sponsorship is the biggest source of revenue for the race; contact the Iditarod’s corporate sponsors and request that they no longer fund this deadly and horrific event.
This week, a shocking report from the British Columbia Worker’s Compensation Board was leaked to the media: the general manager of a dog tour company filed an application for post-traumatic stress disorder after having killed 100 sled dogs on April 21 and 23, 2010, as allegedly ordered to by his employer. He used a gun to shoot each dog and the killings were performed in full view of the other terrified dogs slated to be shot. The full report (below) on the incident describes nightmarish scenes during the cull, includinga dog named Suzie whose cheek was blown off and her eyeball left dangling prior to the killing shot, and a dog named Poker who was shot accidentally and suffered for fifteen minutes before being euthanized. Please be advised that the details are graphic and very disturbing:
The dog cull was ordered because of a “slow winter season,” according to USA Today. Marcie Moriarty, head of the British Columbia SPCA cruelty investigations division, told theVancouver Sun that:
There is a problem with the sled dog industry in general. People see these 20 sled dogs, an idyllic setting with snow in the background and think how great. But what they don’t see is the 200 dogs tethered and sleeping out back, chained to a barrel….What do they do when they don’t have the money to feed them all? When the dogs aren’t needed. The order to simply put them down is not acceptable.
To many of us, the most familiar face of the sled dog industry is Alaska’s Iditarod, an annual race in which teams of dogs are forced to pull a sled 1,100 miles across the Alaska wilderness, often running at a grueling pace of over 100 miles per day for ten straight days. The race has become a big money maker, bringing tourists and sponsors to Alaska.
The Alaska media and the “mushers” seem to glory in the race, but animal protectionists and advocates see a different side of this so-called “fun” event. To us, it is yet another way that human beings amuse themselves and make big money abusing and exploiting animals.
Since the race began in 1973, over 130 dogs have died during the event. We don’t know how many dogs have died during training or immediately after the event, because no one is keeping statistics. Causes of death have included heart attacks, drowning, hemorrhaging after being impaled on a sled, muscular arrest and strangulation. There are multiple claims that dogs have been beaten during the race when they were too tired or otherwise unwilling to continue running. And, there are many examples of dogs suffering injuries, exhaustion and other illnesses.
Alaska’s anti-cruelty law specifically exempts “generally accepted dog mushing or pulling contests” from the protections given to other animals in Alaska. It should also be noted that in ALDF’s 2010 State Rankings Report, Alaska’s anti-cruelty law ranked in the bottom tier. No surprise there!
RELATED | Probe Into Dog Slaughter Underway, The Globe and Mail
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Message Text
I was horrified to learn this week about the massacre of 100 sled dogs at a British Columbia dog tour company, who conducted a grisly, inhumane “cull” because business was slow. News reports confirm that the practice of killing unwanted dogs is commonplace in the industry. In the U.S., the dog sledding industry goes largely unregulated, and mushing is actually exempt from state cruelty laws in Alaska.
Since the Iditarod race began in 1973, over 130 dogs have died during the event. We don’t know how many dogs have died during training or immediately after the event, because no one is keeping statistics — however, news reports detail Iditarod mushers shooting, drowning, and bludgeoning to death their own unwanted dogs. Other causes of death for sled dogs have included heart attacks, hemorrhaging after being impaled on a sled, muscular arrest and strangulation. There are multiple claims that dogs have been beaten during the race when they were too tired or otherwise unwilling to continue running. And there are numerous examples of dogs suffering injuries, exhaustion and other illnesses.
I urge you to take a stand against the savage cruelty of the dog sledding industry and pull your sponsorship of the 2011 Iditarod immediately. No one should be cashing in on the suffering — and the all-too-often savage slaughter — of dogs forced to mush. As long as you continue to fund the Iditarod, the blood of these abused animals remains on your hands.
On dairy …
From PETA
Cows Used for Their Milk
Cows produce milk for the same reason that humans do: to nourish their young. In order to force the animals to continue giving milk, factory farm operators typically impregnate them using artificial insemination every year. Calves are generally taken from their mothers within a day of being born—males are destined for veal crates or barren lots where they will be fattened for beef, and females are sentenced to the same fate as their mothers.
After their calves are taken from them, mother cows are hooked up, several times a day, to milking machines. Using genetic manipulation, powerful hormones, and intensive milking, factory farmers force cows to produce about 10 times as much milk as they would naturally.
Animals are often dosed with bovine growth hormone (BGH), which contributes to a painful inflammation of the udder known as “mastitis.” (BGH is used widely in the U.S. but has been banned in Europe and Canada because of concerns over human health and animal welfare.) According to the industry’s own figures, between 30 and 50 percent of dairy cows suffer from mastitis, an extremely painful condition.
A cow’s natural lifespan is about 25 years, but cows used by the dairy industry are killed after only four or five years. An industry study reports that by the time they are killed, nearly 40 percent of dairy cows are lame because of the intensive confinement, the filth, and the strain of being almost constantly pregnant and giving milk. Dairy cows’ bodies are turned into soup, companion animal food, or low-grade hamburger meat because their bodies are too “spent” to be used for anything else.
Related | Denied their mothers, food, and the right to life, from Animals Australia
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Related | Blitzen and Friends’ Rescue Story, from Farm Sanctuary
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Veal Calves
Male calves—”byproducts” of the dairy industry—are generally taken from their mothers when they are less than 1 day old. Many are shipped off to barren, filthy feedlots to await slaughter. Others are kept in dark, tiny crates where they are kept almost completely immobilized so that their flesh stays tender. In order to make their flesh white, the calves are fed a liquid diet that is low in iron and has little nutritive value. This heinous treatment makes the calves ill, and they frequently suffer from anemia, diarrhea, and pneumonia.
Frightened, sick, and alone, these calves are killed after only a few months of life so that their flesh can be sold as veal. All adult and baby cows, whether raised for their flesh or their milk, are eventually shipped to a slaughterhouse and killed.
The good news is that removing dairy products from your diet is easier than ever. Today there is a multitude of nondairy “dairy” products on the market, such as soy, rice, and almond milk and soy ice cream. Check out a list of our favorite dairy and meat alternatives.
It’s Easy To Be Dairy-Free!
Related:
Woman In Stoning Case Spared Death By Hanging
From Care2
By Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux
We wrote many posts last summer about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian woman who was convicted of adultery and sentenced to stoning. Over the months, the verdict changed from stoning to hanging, her lawyer was forced to flee to Norway, the Iranian government released Ashtiani’s “confession,” and the Brazilian government offered Ashtiani asylum. Now, she reportedly will serve 10 years in prison in a triumphant conclusion to many attempts to save her life.
According to Amnesty International, Iran executes more people every year than any country except China, and another NGO claims that Iran is on an “execution binge,” with an average of one person hanged every 8 hours since the beginning of the year.
“The Iranian Judiciary is on an execution binge orchestrated by the intelligence and security agencies,” explained Aaron Rhodes, a spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
The Ashtiani case, however, was an example of the positive effect that international attention can have. Politicians, religious institutions and celebrities alike spoke out on her behalf, including Carla Bruni, the singer and French first lady, who the Iranian media then called a prostitute, and the immense amount of pressure on the Iranian government to rescind the brutal sentence clearly had an impact.
Protest Nevada Bear Hunt, ESA Wolf Exemption, Utah Hospital Cat and Rabbit Mutilations
Please click on the following and take action:
1. Email a message to Suzanne Scourby, Nevada Department of Wildlife, opposing the proposed Nevada bear hunt
2. Please Replace Cruel Animal Labs at Conference With Simulators
3. Oppose attempts to eliminate vital, life-saving protections for America’s wolves.
1. BACKGROUND | From No Bear Hunt Nevada
The impetus for forming our group was to oppose the first ever Nevada bear hunt. We believe Tahoe bears should be treated kindly by those of us who share their habitat. The bears are already under stress from habitat encroachment as we spread more and more into their native range. Easy food sources from mishandling trash have disrupted their natural behavior and created urban interface problems. Statistical data shows this problem is being slowly and successfully dealt with due to greater public awareness. For the sportsmen who comprise the majority of the Nevada Department of Wildlife Commission to suggest that we should hunt bears in order to raise monies to teach people to handle trash properly is using the logic that “two wrongs make a right.” The blood of Tahoe bears should not be financing what is a human trash handling problem. Citizens can and are making improvements in this area. Our organization is contributing to non-lethal solutions.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Email a courteous but firm letter to Suzanne Scourby, Executive Assistant, Nevada Department of Wildlife, sscourby@ndow.org expressing your concern over the WLC ruling to introduce for the first time in her history, bear hunting in Nevada. Make clear you are resolved to see the ruling reversed.
Use the Background materials for more information if needed.
Sample Message:
To the Nevada Wildlife Commission,
I am writing to make it clear that I object to the bear hunt regulation on the basis of the procedural abuses, lack of scientific data to prove there are sufficient bears, lack of scientific data on how many bears are indeed required for the hunt, the dismissal and ignoring of 3000 unique emails opposed to the hunt (no copies or duplicates included in that number), the characterization of these emails as spam, the bias displayed by Mr. Lackey in soliciting and facilitating support for the bear hunt and the failure of Commissioner Hal Shrum to represent the general public by voting for the hunt in spite of overwelming public opposition.
These abuses must be addressed before the regulation can move forward. Item #12 on the February 4th Wildlife Commission meeting agenda, “Commission Regulation 11-07, Black Bear Hunt – Chief of Game Larry Gilbertson and Big Game Biologist Carl Lackey – Action,” must be tabled until these issues are satisfactorily addressed to the public who are increasingly enraged by reckless Wildlife Commission statements and irresponsible Nevada Department of Wildlife determinations. Item 12 must be stricken from the agenda.
Please include this email in the public record for the Wildlife Commission hearing on February 4 and 5. (Ms. Scourby, will you please forward this email to all of the Wildlife Commissioners.)
Sincerely,
If you are unable to send an email via the hot link, copy/paste the above letter and email to:
2. BACKGROUND | From PETA
In a cruel and archaic training session at the annual Current Concepts in Neonatal & Pediatric Transport conference, which is sponsored by the Primary Children’s Medical Center (PCMC) and the University of Utah, cats have hard plastic tubes repeatedly forced down their delicate windpipes for intubation training.
The cats used in these training exercises are lost, stray, or surrendered animals who have been purchased from a local animal shelter. Many of the cats are killed at the end of the training session because their throats become badly mutilated during the cruel procedure. Those who survive often suffer bleeding, swelling, scarring, and even collapsed lungs. Trainees also cut up and poke needles into rabbits who have been killed in other experiments.
This abuse continues even though sophisticated infant simulators are widely used for this training across the country. The use of simulators has been endorsed by leading medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, and studies have found that simulators are better at preparing medical care providers to treat sick and injured pediatric patients than are cruel and crude animal laboratories.
Please contact officials at PCMC and its parent company and politely urge them to replace the use of animals at this conference with one of the many effective, non-animal training methods that are available.
Putting your subject line and letter into your own words will help draw attention to your e-mail.
RELATED | University of Utah Lab Undercover Investigation
Vodpod videos no longer available.
MESSAGE TEXT
I was dismayed to learn that the Current Concepts in Neonatal & Pediatric Transport conference, which is co-sponsored by Primary Children’s Medical Center, will include cruel and archaic training exercises on cats and rabbits even though leading medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics endorse the use of humane and effective simulators for teaching these very same skills.
Please replace the use of animals at this conference with one of the many effective, non-animal training methods that are available.
3. BACKGROUND | From DOW
Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg has introduced legislation that would strip federal protections for gray wolves across the country.
Together, these bills would allow states to eliminate all wolves in the Northern Rockies, Great Lakes and Southwest, including the 42 Mexican wolves struggling for survival in New Mexico and Arizona. If passed, this legislation would be the first to exempt a single species from the Endangered Species Act, setting a dangerous precedent for removing protections for other imperiled wildlife.
Urge your U.S. representative to oppose Congressman Denny Rehberg’s legislation and other Congressional attempts to eliminate vital, life-saving protections for America’s wolves.
Bulgaria sets first annual bear hunting quota, please send message
PHOTO | Wikimedia Commons
Please send message to associated address protesting Bulgaria’s bear hunt; you may use the sample letter but modify and shorten if possible. All email addresses valid, use separately or copy/paste as a group. Thank you.
From AFP | Yahoo News
Bulgaria’s environment ministry set an annual brown bear hunting quota for the first time on Thursday, following a decades-long ban on killing the protected animals.
The ministry said in a statement it would allow the hunting of 17 animals this year, with dispensations distributed among seven bear-populated regions.
The quota was determined based on three recent tallies of the bear population, which found that some 540 to 560 bears roam Bulgaria’s mountains.
Seven of the dispensations were granted to the Smolyan region, in the southern Rhodope mountains, where a brown bear killed a villager in July 2010, the first such accident in decades.
The killing and a number of attacks on flocks and beehives in the region sparked angry cries for a cull and eventually prompted parliament in end-2010 to open between three and eight percent of the bear population for hunting.
Environmentalists immediately slammed the changes as catering to the interests of hunting lobbies, under the guise of attempting to curb poaching.
“We had to obey the law,” ministry expert Ruslan Serbezov told AFP, noting however that the government had set the quota at the lowest three-percent end of the scale, while Bulgaria’s bear habitats were by no means overpopulated.
Bears are a protected species in Bulgaria and their killing was strictly banned for more than 20 years, except in cases of accidents and with special permits distributed on a case-by-case basis.
The move comes as the European Commission launched legal action against Sweden on Thursday for allowing hunters to shoot 20 wolves this year even though the species is threatened with extinction.
The European Union’s executive arm raised concerns about Sweden’s wolf policy, including the licensed hunting of a protected species and the “arbitrary ceiling” of 210 wolves that was set for the animal’s population.
Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said Sweden alone could decide whether or not to allow the hunt.
Related | Brown Bears Socializing, National Geographic
Vodpod videos no longer available.
WHERE TO SEND YOUR LETTERS
Dr. Miroslav Hristoforov Naydenov, Minister of Agriculture and Food
Ministry of Environment and Water
Executive Environment Agency
Neli Mutafova, Ministry of Environment and Water
ADDRESSES AS A GROUP
minister@mzh.government.bg , rdd@mzh.government.bg , contact@moew.government.bg , ncesd@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int , n.mutafova@moew.government.bg
SUBJECT
Hunting Bear Quota, Stop the Bear Hunt
SAMPLE LETTER
To Whom It Concerns,
Hunting is inherently cruel, yet this hunt is particularly savage, employing cheap baiting tactics to attract the bear, a decidedly unmerited and cruel strategy to lure this creature to his death. Although the desire to protect personal property is understandable, doing so via death and destruction by hunting aficionados reveals more of a selfish maneuver than a selfless endeavor. Indeed, manipulating the situation by labeling the bear as deadly destroys any recourse on behalf of the bear or diplomatic decisions. Furthermore, it is important that you are aware that the brown or grizzly bear, ursos arctos, is considered a threatened species in many locales, and is also listed by the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as at risk or endangered depending upon location, and that hunting them could be considered an international crime .
Therefore, I respectfully request that, based on the established brutality involved as well as the potentiality for facilitation of illegal animal commerce and trade, you please vacate any licenses provided and dispense with any further hunting operation against the one, or any other, brown bear and instead seek non-lethal interventions as necessary. Please leave your reputation free of such brutal, inequitable hunting enterprises, and do not allow economical benefits, hunting sympathizers, and distorted accusations to dominate over ethics and judicious resolutions.
I know your time is limited, and I thank you for your attention to this urgent concern.
Your name
Country
Whistler employee told to shoot 70 sled dogs in post-Olympic cull | BC SPCA probes mass killing
PHOTO | Wolfgang Hägele
Please note the video is from a previous case. Contacts for Outdoor Adventures Whistler below.
Please click on and sign Prosecute for the senseless slaughter of 100 Sled Dogs
From The Globe and Mail
By Robert Matas
An employee of Outdoor Adventure Whistler has received compensation for post traumatic distress disorder after he was required to shoot at least 70 healthy sledding dogs.
The huskies, weighing about 40 to 50 pounds, were used by the sledding company to take tourists into the wilderness around Whistler during the 2010 Winter Olympics but were uneconomic to keep after the Games were over and the tourists went home.
“People might be shocked, in the sense, you spend your $150 and you see 20 dogs hooked up in an idyllic setting in Whistler,” Marcie Moriarty, the general manger of cruelty investigation for the BC SPCA said Monday in an interview. “What do you do not see is the 200-plus dogs tethered back at the compound,” she said
“When the demand is not there, presumably what happened in this case, they just decided to put them down. Apparently the reason was that they needed to reduce the herd,” she said.
The company’s general manager, who has not been identified publicly, says in his claim for compensation that he went out on April 21, 2010, and April 23, 2010, with a shotgun and proceeded to kill the dogs.
“What is extremely upsetting is to read what he described – some of them requiring mulitple shots, his having to slit their throats, dogs faces being blown off and they were still running around, dogs that he thought had been dead, that he put in what he described as a masked grave and he looks back and sees her trying to climb out,” Ms. Moriarty said.
“That one, to me, I had to stop reading them and pick it up later. It is just so upsetting.”
Ms. Moriarty said she believes the killings are Criminal Code offences. “I have no doubt he has PTDD but does that absolve him? No one can force you to commit a Criminal Code offence,” she said.
“As for the company, they are morally responsible, absolutely, for any connection to this.”
The general manager’s lawyer Corey Steinberg was not available early Monday for a comment. A WorkSafeBC spokesperson said claims for compensation are confidential and the provincial agency could not release the compensation decision that sets out the circumstances of the event.
The company has said that 100, not 70 dogs, were killed.
RELATED | Neglected Sled Dogs Rescued
Vodpod videos no longer available.
From CTV News | BC SPCA probes mass killing of sled dogs
By Bethany Lindsay
Police and the B.C. SPCA are investigating “horrific” reports that a Whistler tour company slaughtered at least 100 healthy sled dogs last year, dumping their bodies into a mass grave.
Marcie Moriarty, general manager for SPCA cruelty investigations, told ctvbc.ca that a worker at Outdoor Adventures Whistler filed a WorkSafe BC claim for post-traumatic stress after being ordered to shoot dozens of dogs to death.
“It’s horrific,” Moriarty said.
“I’ve seen some pretty terrible things, but reading this [claim], I had to put it down at times.”
Moriarty said the slaughter was conducted between April 21 and 23. On his claim, the worker wrote that he had killed 70 dogs, but the company allegedly corrected that number to 100.
The dogs were reportedly killed because of a “slow winter season.”
Whistler RCMP Staff Sgt. Steve LeClair said police are investigating the allegations, and criminal charges are possible, including cruelty to animals and injuring or endangering animals.
In the documents, the worker describes a dog that survived a shot to the face: “(his) eye was hanging off, and (he) was still running around,” Moriarty said.
Another apparently dead dog was dumped into the mass grave, but the worker later noticed (her) trying to pull (herself) out.
“The fact that he did this in front of all the other dogs tethered there, I can’t even imagine,” Moriarty said.
Vet-supervised lethal injections would have been the ‘humane way’ to cull the dogs, she added. “It is technically legal to shoot an animal, as long as (he) dies instantly. That most certainly did not happen in this instance.”
She said the SPCA will now have to dig up the mass grave to complete its investigation, which will include the possibility of criminal charges.
The Vancouver Humane Society is now calling for a ban on sled-dog tours.
“The details of how these dogs were killed are absolutely shocking,” VHS spokesman Peter Fricker said in a release.
“This is what happens when animals are exploited for profit and become surplus to requirements when business is bad.”
Outdoor Adventures has not returned calls from ctvbc.ca.
Related:
- ph.604 932 0647
- fax.604 932 0657
- email.info@tagwhistler.com
Sled Dog Racing: Death on the Trails
140 Billion ‘Sled Dogs’ Slaughtered Yearly
Read more…
Animal Testing Degrades Humanity
From Anthony Marr Blogspot | Friday, January 28, 2011
Read Animal testing opponents discard humanity and hope HERE
All pictures are courtesy Anthony Marr as taken during the Stop UBC Animal Research demonstration held at the Vancouver Art Gallery on January 27. The event was in response to brutality and suffering inflicted on animals by UBC for experimentation.
Anthony Marr: My Gratitudes | #4 – to the 1800 volunteers of the Bear Referendum campaign
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Gratitude #4: to the 1800 volunteers of the Bear Referendum campaign
This is the 4th dedication of my Gratitude series, and the first one posted in the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition site. The entire series is being posted in my personal site as it is being written.
WCWC’s Bear Referendum campaign in full swing
Today is Christmas Day, 2010, a day of gratitude. In the 55 days since the successful conclusion of my 40-states-in-7-months Compassion for Animals Road Expedition #7 (CARE-7), I’ve been informing the members of the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition about the power and potential of the social-political mechanism called the “Referendum Initiative” as a constitution-amending and law-changing tool. I’ve compared the Referendum to a sledgehammer, versus a non-binding petition being a handful of sand. I have also written that for the activists of a certain state with referendum legislation to not use the Referendum as a campaigning tool is like going to war, leaving the most potent weapon behind.
First, why do we need constitutional amendments and law changing?
Consider one example each. In terms of constitutional amendments, let me use as an example the state of New Jersey. Only 0.8% of New Jersey’s population hunt, but the state constitution of New Jersey dictates that of the 11 voting members of the Fish and Game Commission which determines wildlife management policy, 6 must be hunters and another 3 must be farmers, who are usually also hunters. Last time I checked, all 11 were hunters. In other words, the 99.2% of New Jerseyans who don’t hunt, be they hikers, campers, photographers, bird-watchers, naturalists, independent biologists (i.e. not government biologists), ecologists… have no say in the matter whatsoever. Pseudo-democracy and ingrained corruption at their bluntest. As long as this constitutional provision holds sway, it will be wildlife management policy by hunters, for hunters. Injustice and bloodshed will stalk every New Jerseyan autumn, year after year, until this constitution has been amended.
Wisconsin has about the same problem, and Wisconsinians are clamoring for a constitutional change towards proportional representation of hunters and non-hunters in its own Fish and Game Commission.
In terms of changes in statute, I could use Pennsylvania as an example, where Jan Haagensen was convicted on nine counts of violations against the Hunter Harassment Statue for asking trespassing hunters to leave her property.
Unfortunately for the activists of NJ, WI, and PA, none of these states has Referendum legislation, so their fight would be frustrating to say the least.
Two things to note at this point:
1. Most states have a state constitution with prohunting clauses as the one of New Jersey, and
2. there are 26 states with referendum legislation for constitutional amendment and statute alteration purposes.
And, pardon my repetition, for the activists of a state with referendum legislation to not use it is tantamount to going to war while leaving the most potent weapon behind.
But there is legislation and there is legislation. Where in one state the rules of engagement are fair and square, to give both the proponents and the opponents a level playing field, another state may have rules that are heavily biased for one or the other. So, it pays for the activists to do some preliminary investigation before undertaking a referendum campaign. I’ve learned the hard way, believe me.
Following is my first hand account of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee’s “Bear Referendum” campaign of 1996, which, though it did not succeed due to unworkable regulations, nonetheless merited the description of “the highest-profile animal protection campaign of the year in Canada” by Canada’s national newspaper the Globe and Mail, and forced a moratorium of Grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia by the ruling New Democratic Party (NDP), until it was overturned by the succeeding Liberal Party (LP, which strangely was considered right-wing in relation to the NDP).
Since the success of the Chinatown campaign in forcing the WAPPRIITA law in 1996 (see Gratitude #3), a new thought emerged in my mind: So, it is now unlawful to hunt bears in Canada for gall bladder and paw, why is it not only legal, but condoned and promoted for trophy hunters, to hunt bears for head and hide? Aren’t gall bladder, paw, head and hide ALL bear parts? Do bears suffer less being killed for head and hide than for gall and paw? Isn’t this a clear double standard in favor of recreational hunting and trophy hunting over medicinal hunting?
Thus, my anti-hunting passion was born.
In April 1996, around the time of the enactment of the new WAPPRIITA law (see Gratitude #3) the thought came to me that since only about 5% of the population hunt, if we put it to a referendum vote on, say, banning bear hunting in BC, we stood a good chance of winning the ballot, and if we do, then it would likely become law that bear hunting in BC is banned. Paul George either independently thought of it, or liked the idea, as did executive directors Adriane Carr and Joy Foy. It was not a small commitment, in fact one of the greatest commitments made by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, but we made it, and stuck by it all the way.
Basically, it is a 2-part process:
1. To perform an Initiative Petition on the issue to collect so many thousands of signatures from registered voters throughout BC within a certain Petition Period, and, if the terms of the petition are satisfied, then
2. the question “Should bear-hunting be banned in British Columbia?” would be put to public vote – yay or nay.
If the referendum vote says, “Yay, ban bear hunting in BC,” then bear hunting would be banned in BC.
#1 turned out to be much more complicated than it looks. In order to collect so many signatures within such an amount of time, we needed a huge volunteer force of thousands. This necessitated me, the lead campaigner, to travel from city to city, by car, for 60 days (June 1 – July 31, 1996) covering 50 cities, giving presentations to the local animal advocacy groups, signing up volunteers.
This may look like a “paid vacation tour” ;), but reality is far different. After the first couple of presentations, it had become clear that I had but two alternatives: covert and overt. The Covert alternative was to keep the meetings secret, attendees by invitation only; the Overt alternative was to publicly pre-announce the meeting by all means available including newspaper articles and radio announcements. The former was reasonably secure, but it did not bring enough people to the meeting to fill my volunteer quota. The latter brought forth large numbers of hunters, though it did bring enough volunteers.
I adopted the Overt method. The result was that I was confronted by 30-130 hunters at a time over 40 times in the 2 month period. But I also signed up well over 1,000 volunteers on the spot, and a total of 1,800 volunteers in the end. Plus, it generated over 150 newspaper articles and hours of TV and radio interviews and debates, including a 1.5 hour televised debate on a Kamloops radio talk-show program between John Holdstock, president of the BC Wildlife Federation (I called it the BC Wildlife-Killing Federation) and myself, which fielded 30 incoming calls, 25 from hunters. As you can see, they were very well-organized – by the BCWF and other hunting and prohunting groups.
Following is a series of excerpts from the media coverage garnered during that time period and the few years that followed as the campaign kept on make waves. Among the excerpts you will find accounts of how some of the volunteers were themselves harassed by hunters, and some of their display booths were canceled by and evicted from those shopping centers intimidated by the hunters. One hunter even grabbed a bunch of signed petition forms and tore them up in front of the volunteers. I myself was eventually assaulted (1998-01-21) by a hunter, resulting in three facial bone fractures and a buckled eye socket floor. But the campaign kept on rolling, resulting in the Grizzly bear hunting moratorium in 1999.
One of the pieces towards the end is titled Making BC’s Referendum Act Workable. In the nut shell, BC’s referendum Act stipulates that the Initiative Petition must contain certified signatures from at least 10% of the registered voters in each and every one of the 75 Electoral Districts. If one of the 75 electoral districts falls short by even 1%, the entire Initiative Petition would be deemed a failure. Plus, we were given only 3 months to collect all these signatures. In contrast, the rules in WA and OR are more workable by far, or workable, period, since BC’s is unworkable. They need the signatures of only 5% of the registered voters, and these signatures could be collected anywhere within in the state, in WA all from Seattle if the proponents so please, and a time period of 5 months is allowed. This is why those referendum campaigns in WA and OR succeeded.
Anthony Marr
1996-06-14 (Alberni Valley Times article on AM debating 65 hunters)
Anti Trophy Hunting | Bear hunters confront bare-faced petition to put them into permanent hibernation
June 14, 1996
Alberni Valley Times
By Diane Morrison
Bears, whether Black, Brown, Grizzly or Polar, are not endangered species in North America. Anthony Marr wants to keep it that way.
The campaigner for Western Canada Wilderness Committee was in Port Alberni Thursday night with his effort to ban sport and trophy hunting of Grizzly and Black bears.
It was a very hard sell to the audience of about 70 dominated by hunters and hunting guides that packed into a into small, hot room at the Friendship Centre, made even hotter by the temper flaring up from wall to wall.
The hunters say they are the endangered species. They wanted the distinction between legal hunting and poaching to be clearly recognized. “Go ask the bears, to see if they can,” said Marr. He also said that some hunters and guides make this impossible, because they are themselves poachers.
Marr believes that, with both legal hunting, poaching and conservation officer kills, about 8% of the Grizzly bear population and more than 10% of the Black bear population are being killed each year. He said the province’s Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy clearly states that the species can sustain no more than a 4% annual mortality before going into decline, and even this, according to Marr, is too high.
Members of the audience disputed Marr’s numbers saying that, on Vancouver Island at least, the Black bear population has been increasing by 15% for the last 10 years. Marr countered that the Black bear populations on southern Vancouver Island, and some in Mid-Island, have been decimated in various locales, citing the Cowichan Lake area as an example, and challenged the hunters to produce written documentation to support their claim, which they did not.
A number of people asked why Marr’s main thrust was to shut down legal hunting when the problem is poaching. Marr replied that both in combination is the problem, and that he has another sub-campaign targeting poachers and traffickers of bear parts. A Chinese Canadian, Marr has taken on both Canadian hunters and the Chinese demand for the body parts of these animals.
After about an hour of cross firing, WCWC campaign assistant Erica Denison finally stood up and said that until poaching can be brought under control, they want to buy time for the bears to recover. One of the hunters pointed at her and said, “Young lady, you are not old enough to teach us anything. Sit down!” Marr pointed at a middle-aged woman in the audience who had been quite outspoken in favour of hunting, saying, “I’ve been listening to this young lady for the last hour. Erica, please continue.”
Marr needs to get hunters on his side, the woman said, not slam them, because hunters also want to stop poaching.
Some audience members said it is organizations such as WCWC, advertising the fact that bear parts are worth so much on the black market, that is increasing poaching. Marr scoffed at this as an “ostrich attitude”.
They objected to being told that they can’t legally hunt bears, but bears that get into garbage and smash bee hives can be killed for being a nuisance. Marr said, “The bears you kill are not nuisance bears, and that killing nuisance bears is not your job.”
When shown a picture of a bear shut in a small cage with a tube leading out from its gall bladder to extract bile, one man said that countries that treat animals like that are not democratic and so they have no conscience. Marr countered that lots of capitalists have no conscience either.
Another man was convinced that if WCWC is successful in shutting down bear hunting, it will try to shut down all hunting. Marr said, “If another hunted species becomes threatened or endangered, I would champion its cause as well.”
Back to poaching, Marr said that when an animal such as the tiger and the rhino is declared endangered, the demand and price, and so the poaching, skyrocket, hastening its slide into oblivion. “It is a very vicious cycle, and the purpose of this campaign is to try to keep our own bears out of it.” . . .
Anthony Marr debating 100 hunters at a time over 40 times in 60 days in his 1996 50-cities road tour.
1996-07-05 (Prince George Citizen article on AM debating 130 hunters)
Anti Trophy Hunting | Fur flies at meeting to ban bear hunts
1996-07-05
The Prince George Citizen
By Gordon Hoekstra
It was barely civil and sometimes downright ugly. In the end, it took a representative of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee close to two hours to deliver a plea for help to ban bear hunting in BC. Anthony Marr was interrupted, shouted down, and generally abused by hunters in an audience of more than 100 that spilled out of the conference room at the Civic Centre Thursday evening…Marr had barely begun…before he was attacked…
1996 – One of the Bear Referendum’s 1800 volunteers hard at work.
1996-07-09 (Kamloops Daily News article on AM debating 50 hunters)
Anti Trophy Hunting | Activist calls for bear-hunt ban
1996-07-09
The Daily News, Kamloops, BC
by Michelle Young
With calm and respect, Anthony Marr faced rapid-fire questioning from hunters and threw back a plea for them to stop hunting bears…
1996 – the BEAR-CARE-a-van in action
1996-08 (Georgia Straight article Hunters Target Marr)
1996 – Anthony Marr with Western Canadian Wilderness Committee’s founder Paul George on the day the Initiative Petition signatures were presented to the BC government.
1996-08-17 (Vancouver Sun, Westcoast People, article on AM and his work)
Anthony Marr debating hunters 100 at a time over 40 times in 1996
Action Alert: Email Blast Needed to Demand Answers from UF
From WAARights
Silence is NOT Golden.
Email campaigns can be very effective if large numbers of activists participate.
Hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars fill the coffers each year at the University of Florida yet, on December 17, 2010, contrary to Florida Statutes, they refused to disclose public information. In addition, UF has an established pattern of applying for and receiving federal grants to conduct torturous experiments on animals while SIMULTANEOUSLY denying any involvement in such research.
Please help by sending the following message to the associated parties; please note that if the first set of email addresses to be CC’d does not work, use the second set.
Thank you.
I. CUT & PASTE INTO BODY OF EMAIL
Janine Sikes
Director of Public Affairs University Relations
University of Florida
101 Tigert Hall
Office: 352-846-3903/06
Dear Ms. Sikes:
Earlier this month, activists raised a number of issues with you regarding possible financial fraud at the University of Florida. These allegations are based on your direct quotes as well as the university’s decision to withhold public information.
Your silence is unacceptable and your public relations problems have only just begun.
I am greatly concerned — as all taxpayers should be — that it appears UF is abusing federal funds.
I await your responses to each and every issue regarding Ethical Misconduct and Fraudulent Use of Federal Funds raised in the letters that you have failed to respond to for two weeks:
http://negotiationisover.com/2011/01/urgent-query-to-uf-regarding-ethics-and-public-funding/
Thank you in advance for your attention to these serious matters.
DISTRIBUTION
Janine Sikes – Director of Public Relations, University of Florida
Bernie Machen – President, University of Florida
Mingzhou Ding – Researcher, University of Florida
Chancellor – Florida Board of Governors
Local & National Media Outlets
Camille Marino – NIO Florida
YOUR NAME
II. PLEASE SEND THIS EMAIL TO JANINE SIKES AT
III. CUT & PASTE EMAIL BLOCK INTO THE CCs
***If the first set with hot links does not work, copy/paste the second set
Set with hotlinks
camille@negotiationisover.com, president@ufl.edu, cmachen@ufl.edu, Chancellor@flbog.edu, mzding@ufl.edu, info@wuft.org, radio@wuft.org, tv20news@wcjb.com, editor@insitegainesville.com, joe.adams@jacksonville.com, steve.cotter@jacksonville.com, roger.bull@jacksonville.com, tracy.jones@jacksonville.com, AMarques@MiamiHerald.com, PAndrews@MiamiHerald.com, JWooldridge@MiamiHerald.com, sabrahams@orlandosentinel.com, aacevedo@orlandosentinel.com, insight@orlandosentinel.com, bgabordi@tallahassee.com, hschwarz@tallahassee.com, ncfmrbob@earthlink.net, scoop@huffingtonpost.com, pc@pchouseproductions.com, chip@pchouseproductions.com, brose@entercom.com, crash@windfm.com, efuggetta@alligator.org, jimmy@civicmediacenter.org, outreach@wedu.org, editor@alachuatoday.com, news@sctnews.com, newsdesk@gainesvillegazette.info, record620@aol.com, osteenj@gvillesun.com, editor@alligator.org, tsenter@mygtn.tv, news@foxwofl.com, tjhart@entercom.com, fmnews@wuft.org, mleeps@wuft.org, rdupont@NorthFloridaHerald.com, torres@fcir.org, mschneider@ap.org, newsdesk@cfnews13.com, editor@orlandosentinel.com, wesh2news@gmail.com, news@wftv.com, desk@wkmg.com, eric.barton@browardpalmbeach.com, info@inweekly.net, executive.editor@heraldtribune.com, bfarrington@ap.org, local@sptimes.com, cmarshalsea@4freepress.com, matthew.fry@thevillagesmedia.com, bskoloff@ap.org, Nathan.Crabbe@gvillesun.com
Set without hotlinks
camille@negotiationisover.com, president@ufl.edu, cmachen@ufl.edu, Chancellor@flbog.edu, mzding@ufl.edu, info@wuft.org, radio@wuft.org, tv20news@wcjb.com, editor@insitegainesville.com, joe.adams@jacksonville.com, steve.cotter@jacksonville.com, roger.bull@jacksonville.com, tracy.jones@jacksonville.com, AMarques@MiamiHerald.com, PAndrews@MiamiHerald.com, JWooldridge@MiamiHerald.com, sabrahams@orlandosentinel.com, aacevedo@orlandosentinel.com, insight@orlandosentinel.com, bgabordi@tallahassee.com, hschwarz@tallahassee.com, ncfmrbob@earthlink.net, scoop@huffingtonpost.com, pc@pchouseproductions.com, chip@pchouseproductions.com, brose@entercom.com, crash@windfm.com, efuggetta@alligator.org, jimmy@civicmediacenter.org, outreach@wedu.org, editor@alachuatoday.com, news@sctnews.com, newsdesk@gainesvillegazette.info, record620@aol.com, osteenj@gvillesun.com, editor@alligator.org, tsenter@mygtn.tv, news@foxwofl.com, tjhart@entercom.com, fmnews@wuft.org, mleeps@wuft.org, rdupont@NorthFloridaHerald.com, torres@fcir.org, mschneider@ap.org, newsdesk@cfnews13.com, editor@orlandosentinel.com, wesh2news@gmail.com, news@wftv.com, desk@wkmg.com, eric.barton@browardpalmbeach.com, info@inweekly.net, executive.editor@heraldtribune.com, bfarrington@ap.org, local@sptimes.com, cmarshalsea@4freepress.com, matthew.fry@thevillagesmedia.com, bskoloff@ap.org, Nathan.Crabbe@gvillesun.com
IV. SUBJECT OF EMAIL
UF: ETHICAL MISCONDUCT & FRAUDULENT USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS
Read more…
Stand with the people in Egypt
PHOTO | Wikimedia Commons
Please click on and sign Stand with the People in Egypt
From Avaaz
The demonstrations in Egypt could end three decades of repressive rule and bring, at long last, freedom and democracy to Egypt.
The regime is attempting to starve the protest movement of two crucial sources of power: information and solidarity. But despite the internet blackout, Egyptian radios and satellite TVs can still receive broadcasts from across the border — so Avaaz will work with broadcasters whose signals reach inside Egypt to circulate the number signatures on this statement of solidarity, along with messages of support from around the world for Egypt’s people.
Every hour matters. What happens next depends of all of us. Let’s stand with those on the streets and build a deafening outcry against rampant corruption and political repression, and for democratic reform. Sign the statement of solidarity HERE and spread the word about this campaign!
Read more…
Four actions: horses, chimpanzees, dolphins, wolves
Please click on and sign the following, thank you (you will get multiple responses from Mirage):
1. Comments Needed to Oppose Triple B, Maverick Medicine Roundup
2. Tell CareerBuilder to Stop Exploiting Chimpanzees!
3. Tell The Mirage to Shut Its Dolphin Death Pool
4. Stop the Unimak Wolf Cull
1. BACKGROUND | From IDA
BLM to remove another 1,726 mustangs from northeastern Nevada. Please submit your comments by February 7
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is accepting public comments on a Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) on a plan to roundup 1,726 wild horses from the Triple B, Maverick Medicine and Antelope Valley BLM Herd Managment Areas and the Cherry Spring Wild Horse Territory, managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The roundup is scheduled for July 2011, in the heat of the desert summer.
The plan will leave behind as few as 472 wild horses in this vast, 1.7 million-acre public lands complex. Meanwhile, the BLM authorizes nine times that number of privately-held, farmed animals to graze the same area.
MESSAGE TEXT
I oppose the waste of tax dollars to roundup up 1,726 wild horses, or approximately 78 percent of the estimated population in the Triple B, Medicine Maverick and Antelope Valley BLM Herd Management Areas (HMAs) and the Cherry Springs Forest Service Wild Horse Territory.
The management approach detailed in the EA continues the unsustainable cycle of roundups, removals and stockpiling of horses in long term holding facilities.
It also perpetuates the unfair allocation of resources within the HMAs to privately-held, farmed animals rather than federally-protected wild horses or other wildlife species. The BLM has set an artificially low Appropriate Management Level (AML) of just 472-889 wild horses for this 1.7 million-acre range, yet authorizes up to nine times that number of farmed animals to graze the same area.
The EA states that horses must be removed to prevent undue or unnecessary degradation of the public lands” and to “restore a thriving natural ecological balance,” However, no threat to the “thriving natural balance” is greater than the extensive grazing of sheep and cattle authorized by BLM in this federally-designated wild horse area. Yet the proposed action includes only removing wild horses; no reduction in sheep and cattle grazing is proposed …
Read the rest and sign HERE
2. BACKGROUND | From PETA
PETA recently learned that CareerBuilder has plans to run a new commercial featuring chimpanzees during the 2011 Super Bowl, despite hearing from thousands of concerned consumers after the company aired ad campaigns in 2005 and 2006 that portrayed chimpanzees as misbehaving office workers. PETA was shocked to learn that CareerBuilder will release a new ad exploiting chimpanzees, especially since a 2008 study published in the journal Science revealed that using this endangered species for advertising seriously hinders conservation efforts by misleading the public into believing that the animals are not in jeopardy.
Chimpanzees used in the entertainment and advertising industries are typically very young animals who are prematurely removed from their mothers—often just days or weeks after birth. Trainers use physical abuse in order to ensure that chimpanzees know “who’s boss” and to force the animals to perform confusing, unnatural behaviors on cue. By the time chimpanzees reach approximately 8 years of age, they are too strong to be safely handled and are often discarded at unaccredited roadside zoos or otherwise warehoused in appalling conditions. PETA investigations have revealed that former “celebrity” apes were living in small cages littered with garbage and feces and were denied basic necessities, such as wholesome food and adequate veterinary care.
Since the original CareerBuilder ads featuring chimpanzees aired in 2005, the public has become significantly less tolerant of the use of chimpanzees in advertising. Ten of the top 15 advertising agencies in the U.S.—including BBDO, Y&R, McCann Erickson, Grey, Ogilvy & Mather, and JWT—now have policies in place that prohibit the use of chimpanzees in their ads. Earlier this year, Dodge, Pfizer, Heartland Payment Systems, and Europcar all pulled or modified ads that featured apes after learning about the ethical problems associated with exploiting these highly intelligent and sensitive animals.
Using the form HERE, please send a quick, polite note to CareerBuilder and urge the company to follow the lead of other companies by agreeing not to air its new commercial featuring chimpanzees.
MESSAGE TEXT
I was extremely disappointed to hear that CareerBuilder will be airing a new commercial that features chimpanzees. By now you know that chimpanzees who are used for advertising are torn away from their mothers as infants, trained through physical abuse, and discarded when they become too strong to be managed. There is no excuse for supporting this cruel industry, especially considering the many alternatives available to the use of live apes.
Please make the responsible and compassionate decision not to air this offensive commercial and agree never to exploit chimpanzees in future CareerBuilder ads and promotions. Thank you for your time.
RELATED | Save the Whales
Vodpod videos no longer available.
3. BACKGROUND | From Born Free
Whether caught wild or born captive, orcas and dolphins in captivity are sentenced to a life of confinement deprived of normal social and environmental interaction — but a 75 percent death rate, even among skeptics, should raise a huge red flag. At The Mirage hotel’s Siegfried & Roy’s Secret Garden and Dolphin Habitat, it’s business as usual: Three-quarters of the dolphins die prematurely!
In 2009, Born Free USA attempted to stop The Mirage from filling its tanks with more dolphins by appealing to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to deny the import permit for two more dolphins from Dolphin Cove, an infamous captive facility in Bermuda.
Adding to the urgency of our plea, a dolphin named Sergeant Pepper died at The Mirage just two weeks after Born Free USA submitted comments opposing this permit. Despite The Mirage’s dismal record, the permit to import more dolphins was granted. Shockingly, the NMFS is not required to consider the welfare of the individual captive dolphins in its decision-making process.
Further, The Mirage is not required to prove that its display is educational nor that it contributes to conservation of the species in the wild. Public viewing of captive dolphins in concrete enclosures performing human-taught “tricks” that they would not otherwise perform in the wild projects a false picture of the animals’ natural lives. Forcing wild animals to live in environments that are incapable of accommodating their natural behavior is not conservation, educational or humane. The most important conservation message that people need to learn is how to value these animals without turning them into commodities for our entertainment.
Born Free USA has a long history of advocating against the use of marine mammals in captive displays and swim-with-dolphin programs. These highly intelligent and sensitive animals do not need to be kept hostage in the middle of the desert for the sole purpose of turning a profit for The Mirage hotel. (Learn Ten Fast Facts about Captive Orcas and Dolphins.)
Please join us in calling on The Mirage to close its captive dolphin exhibit by sending a polite message to the top executives of The Mirage.
MESSAGE TEXT
As a concerned citizen alarmed by your dolphin mortality rate, I implore you to discontinue your dolphin habitat and exhibition. Even among all of the negative data that surrounds the marine mammal entertainment industry, the dolphins’ dire plight at the Mirage is simply excessive. A 75 percent mortality rate simply cannot not be ignored.
Given this track record, it is hard to understand why the Mirage would continue to place wild animals at risk for such a seemingly frivolous purpose as public entertainment.
Whether wild caught or captive born, dolphins in captivity are sentenced to a life of confinement deprived of normal social and environmental interaction that they would otherwise enjoy. Clearly, barren swimming pools in the middle of the desert cannot meet the needs of these highly intelligent and active animals.
Displays of captive cetaceans for entertainment purposes represents a less-enlightened time when animals were viewed as objects for our amusement with no regard to their physical and psychological well-being.
In addition, there are many risks involved in allowing the public to interact physically with dolphins. Physical injuries to humans, such as lacerations and infections, have been well-documented in swim-with-dolphin interaction programs. Such accidents could become costly liabilities.
While I understand that profits are of primary concern, rest assured that tourists will respond to compassion and environmental awareness favorably, thereby justifying changes at the Mirage. There are many ways that the space designated for dolphin tanks could be utilized without exploiting animals — for example, a stage for human performances, a theater to showcase films, or other creative attractions.
Once again, I urge you to make the humane and responsible decision to discontinue your captive dolphin exhibit and replace it with a modern exhibit that does not exploit or endanger the lives of animals or people.
Please remember to CLICK TO FINISH after sending.
4. BACKGROUND | From DOW
Federal officials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have proposed killing half the wolves on Alaska’s Unimak Island – despite the lack of scientific evidence to justify such a terribly final sanction against wolves.
Help save the Unimak wolves. Urge the Alaska Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement before making a decision to kill any of these amazing creatures.
Tell Samsonite you STILL don’t want their bloody luggage …
PHOTO | LACS
Please click on and sign: We don’t want your bloody suitcase, Tim
Previous: Samsonite, capitalizing on blood and suffering
From: League Against Cruel Sports
Luggage company Samsonite has been widely criticised by the League for glorifying bullfighting in an advert to sell a four-wheeled suitcase.
The advert which stars matador Christian Aparicio is apparently supposed to remind us of the mad rush experienced at airports whilst promoting the ease of movement of the case. Unfortunately what Samsonite has failed to realise is that the overwhelming majority of people find bullfighting abhorrent and find the glorification of this barbaric and archaic ‘tradition’ to be in very bad taste.
The depiction of the bullfight in the advert would have us believe that bullfighting is dramatic and graceful, with the scene shot in a dreamlike format. What is not made clear is that bullfighting is not only brutal but completely unnecessary, involving the matador tormenting, goading, stabbing, and eventually killing the bull in what is indisputably an extremely stressful and cruel act of brutality.
The League decided to send Samsonite a message that their customers didn’t want them to glorify bullfighting by delivering a bloody suitcase to their office in London. Watch the video below and then let Samsonite know how you feel about them promoting bullfighting in their advert.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
MESSAGE TEXT
Dear Mr Parker,
I am extremely disappointed that your company has not listened to its customers and is refusing to pull the controversial advert in which a simulated bullfight is used to sell one of its products.
Bullfighting is illegal in the UK and in many other countries across Europe, and opinion polling carried out on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports indicates that 89% of British people would not visit a bullfight. So why is it that Samsonite do not wish to disassociate themselves from this grotesque spectacle of animal cruelty in the same way that British Airways, Ryanair and Eurostar have done so?
During a bullfight, the bull is attacked with lances and harpoons by men on foot and on horseback. The matador forces the confused and exhausted animal to make a few charges and eventually attempts to kill it with a sword. If not killed, the animal is stabbed repeatedly until paralysed. When the bull finally collapses, the spinal cord is cut, but the animal may still be conscious as its ears and tail are cut off and kept as a trophy.
I have heard that you say the use of the bull was a ‘celebration of form and motion’. I think you can see that that is ludicrous. You may as well suggest that hanging is a celebration of rope and gravity.
I am calling on you to distance your company from this horrific, outdated and cruel ‘sport’.
Yours sincerely,
PHOTO | National Geographic
From WDAY News 6
By Kevin Wallevand, WDAY
New York Mills, Minn. (WDAY TV) – The undercover video shows disturbing pictures of sick, injured, and even dead dogs. As the Minnesota legislature prepared to hear a proposal to crack down on puppy mills, an animal-rights group has posted a documentary on-line that was shot at a controversial dog breeder’s farm near New York Mills, Minnesota.
An Otter Tail County jury convicted Kathy Jo Bauck of misdemeanor animal cruelty. Now this video, which may be unsettling for some to watch, has brought her story to the forefront in a documentary sweeping the nation on the internet.
A man posing as someone wanting a job at the Bauck Farm shot the video with an undercover camera. It shows troubling pictures of dogs that have died or have open wounds.
Pick of the litter in New York Mills Minnesota has been one of the largest USDA licensed dog breeder farms in the country. Long a target of allegations of animal abuse and neglect, Kathy Bauck has been in the business since the early 80’s.
We had the Humane Society of Fargo Moorhead watch the undercover documentary which has been posted on animal rights web sites around the country.
But the attorney for Kathy Bauck says, not so fast. Zenas Baer says take a look at the man behind the camera. Baer says allegations of abuse and neglect against Bauck is unfounded.
While Bauck has lost her USDA license, her attorney confirmed to us, she is still selling dogs. The USDA has no jurisdiction over the internet.
CAPS vs Bauck | How a small non-profit brought down a large puppy mill: Undercover investigation by Companion Animal Protection Society
CAPS Investigation of Pick-of-the-litter: Kathy Bauck, Part 1
CAPS Investigation of Pick-of-the-litter: Kathy Bauck, Part 2
Click HERE for CAPS’ full investigation into Kathy Bauck and Pick of the Litter.
Read more…
Hey, Taco Bell, you’re already halfway there …
PHOTO | National Geographic: Meat Smoothie, video still image
From The Pitch
By Charles Ferruzza
Taco Bell: Animal-rights group wants you to go totally meatless
This morning, Nathan Runkle, the founder and executive director of the Chicago-based Mercy for Animals organization sent a letter to Greg Creed, president of Taco Bell, requesting that the fast-food chain go completely meatless.
Taco Bell has been in the eye of an intense media storm for nearly a week since a class-action lawsuit was filed in California claiming that the Tex-Mex chain, owned by Louisville-based Yum! Brands, was serving a beef product that didn’t really have much beef in it.
“Why shouldn’t they go completely meat-free,” says Mercy for Animals spokesman Matt Rice. “They’re already halfway there.”
Rice says Creed hasn’t yet responded to Runkle’s request, which includes this plaintive plea:
“Taco Bell customers would lose their appetites if they saw how cows raised for beef are inflicted with third-degree burns (hot iron branding), have their testicles ripped from their scrotums and have their horns burned out of their skulls — all without painkillers. Undercover investigations have revealed sick and injured animals routinely entering the human food supply …”
“Your readers can go to our website to see the cruelty that cows suffer, routinely, on the way to the slaughterhouse,” says Rice, the campaign coordinator for the New York office of Mercy for Animals (there are other satellite offices in Dallas and Columbus, Ohio).
“We’re hopeful for a positive response,” says Rice. “Since Taco Bell is, allegedly, selling an essentially meatless product, why not go 100 percent meatless?”
Meet Dinner
Meet the Rest
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Read more: Beasley Allen files lawsuit against Taco Bell on behalf of all consumers
Viva Vegan Basics
Read more…
Tell FWS Not to Kill Cats in the Florida Keys
PHOTO | Wikimedia Commons
Please click on and sign Tell FWS Not to Kill Cats in the Florida Keys
From Alley Cat Allies
Now is your chance to comment on a plan under consideration by the US Fish & Wildlife Service that would send cats in the Florida Keys to their deaths. Voice your disapproval!
Intended to protect local threatened and endangered wildlife species, the draft management plan (below) misguidedly targets feral cats instead of addressing the real threat to these species—humans. The plan does not address the impact of human activities like urbanization and land development, but instead puts the blame squarely on feral cats, sending them to a local shelter, where they will be killed according to shelter policy. This dangerous plan also dismisses Trap-Neuter-Return, the humane and effective approach that stabilizes feral cat colonies and would offer a win-win solution for the entire Keys community—a community of which the cats have always been a part.
Send your comments HERE to tell the Fish & Wildlife Service that killing is not a solution—and that you demand one that values and protects the lives of all animals in the Florida Keys.
RELATED | From Alley Cat Allies
MESSAGE TEXT
I urge you to reconsider the plan to trap, remove, and kill cats in the Florida Keys. The Draft Environmental Assessment for the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Complex would currently send trapped cats to shelters, where they will be killed in accordance with shelter policies.
Instead of trapping and killing the cats, FWS should adopt Trap-Neuter-Return for feral cats. This humane and effective technique, supported by the local community, was improperly rejected from consideration. Worse, the Draft Environmental Assessment misinterpreted and disregarded scientific research supporting Trap-Neuter-Return.
Sending cats to senseless deaths to “protect” other animals does nothing to address the true threat to these species–humans. And so the plan doesn’t have a real chance at successfully protecting endangered species. The problems caused by people kill millions of animals per year: habitat loss, urbanization, pollution, and environmental degradation.
Killing cats is not a solution. It is a cruel and costly mistake that has failed in The Keys before. I ask that you change this plan to reflect accurate research and to value and protect the lives of all animals of the Florida Keys by adopting Trap-Neuter-Return.
Our Compass 