A n i m
a l W r i t e s © sm
The
official ANIMAL RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Publisher ~ EnglandGal@aol.com
Issue # 04/08/01
Editor ~ JJswans@aol.com
Journalists ~ Park StRanger@aol.com
~
MichelleRivera1@aol.com
THE SEVEN ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ Defending Rights From A 'Defender' by
Tom Regan
2 ~ What's The Beef With Meat? by Jessica Van
Sack
3 ~ "Objective" Wildlife Experts? by
Stu Chaifetz
4 ~ Listing of the Gray Whale Under the Endangered
Species Act
5 ~ Love For Saint Bernard Meat Angers Swiss
6 ~ Big-Headed Cat by parogers@mindspring.com
7 ~ Quote To Remember
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`
Defending Animal Rights From A
'Defender'
by Tom Regan
Published: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
RALEIGH -- In 1975 the philosopher Peter Singer published "Animal
Liberation." The book was (and continues to be) heralded by many as the "bible
of the animal rights movement." This is both untrue and unfortunate.
It is untrue because Singer denies that animals have rights. It is unfortunate
because it creates the impression that when Singer speaks, he speaks for
everyone who believes in animal rights. He does not. The animal rights
movement is abolitionist in its aspirations. It seeks to end human tyranny
over other animals, not make our tyranny more "humane." It
calls for an end to the fur trade, an end to live animal acts, an end to sport
hunting, an end to vivisection and an end to commercial animal agriculture. As
I have written elsewhere, its goals are empty cages, not larger cages.
People who do not believe in animal rights do not think the world should change
in these ways. Sometimes they call animal rightists "extremists,"
"fanatics," "zealots" and worse. But everyone knows that
name-calling
never settles anything; it is the cogency of ideas that must be
addressed. At the heart of the animal rights movement is the belief in
fundamental moral rights. What matters most is whether humans and other animals
are treated with respect, not what good consequences flow from failing to do
so.
"The end does not justify the means" is a moral truth that applies
beyond the boundaries of our species. Mistaken or not, this is what those
committed to animal rights believe. All this Peter Singer denies. Neither
humans nor animals have rights, in his view. As a utilitarian, he believes that
right and wrong depend on how much satisfaction results from our actions, an
outlook that leads him to accept many practices that advocates of animal rights
reject. For example, given his utilitarianism, there is nothing wrong in
principle if animals are raised to be eaten. If farm animals live a good life,
are killed "humanely," and are replaced by new animals who will be
treated in the same way, satisfaction is optimized, so no wrong is done. No
animal rights advocate believes this. Some people think the difference
between animal rights and Singer's ideas is just a matter of words. This is not
true. Singer's ideas sanction behaviors
that both those who believe in animal rights and those who do not must find
appalling. Any doubts about this vanish when one reads Singer's recent
review of a book by Midas Dekkers called "Dearest Pet." The review
appeared last month in the online sex magazine Nerve.com, whose mission
statement celebrates the belief in "sexual freedom." In his review,
Singer explains why, to his way of thinking, having sex with animals need not
be a bad thing.
Granted, sex involving cruelty to animals is wrong. But, Singer notes,
"sex with animals does not always involve cruelty." In fact, when
done "in private," "mutually satisfying [sexual]
activities" involving animals and humans "may develop." In these
cases, consistent with his utilitarian philosophy, when satisfaction is
optimized, Singer can find no wrong. No serious advocate of animal rights
believes this. And none believes this because none uses Singer's utilitarian
standard as their moral standard. As already noted, for animal rights
advocates, more than consequences matter.
Consider sex with infants. Animal rightists do not say that, when done "in
private," there is nothing wrong with "mutually satisfying [sexual]
activities" involving adults and infants. Rather, we say there is
something wrong in engaging in such activities in the first place. A baby
cannot give informed consent. A baby cannot say "yes." Or
"no." In the nature of the case, engaging in sexual activities with
infants must be coercive, must display a lack of respect, thus must be
wrong. Bestiality is no different. Animal
rightists do not say that, when done "in private," there is nothing
wrong with "mutually satisfying [sexual] activities" involving humans
and animals. Rather, we say there is something wrong in engaging in such
activities in the first place. An animal cannot give informed consent. An
animal cannot say "yes." Or "no. In the nature of the
case, engaging in sexual activities with animals must be coercive, must display
a lack of respect, thus must be wrong. Animal rights advocates are not here
paying irrational homage to
outdated sexual taboos or parading their sexual prudishness. Engaging in
"mutually satisfying activities" is one of life's finest pleasures.
By all means, then, the more such activities, the better ... provided that
those who participate are able to give or withhold their informed consent. The
end of mutual satisfaction never justifies the means of sexual coercion.
Public condemnation of Singer's views on sex with animals, ranging from
"Dr. Laura" to The New Republic, animal rights chat groups and
newspaper opinion pages already is being voiced. Every indication is that the
chorus of condemnation will continue, as well it should. Still, one must
hope that
truth will not be among the casualties. Belief in animal rights can be
challenged in many ways, but let no one say it must be wrong because it
approves of sex with animals. Manifestly, categorically, it does not.
Tom Regan teaches philosophy at N.C. State University. His latest book is
"Defending Animal Rights."
[Editor's Note: For those who are unfamiliar with Peter Singer's work
that is being commented on in this article, check out the following
website. However, be aware that the content is for adults only.]
Nerve.com - Heavy
Petting by Peter Singer
http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
What's The Beef With Meat?
By Jessica Van Sack
http://www.dailyfreepress.com/main.cfm?include=3Ddetail&storyid=3D59320
from - Bruce Friedrich - BruceF@Peta-Online.org
Studies reveal plant diets prevent heart disease
in coronary patients. Is it mad to eat meat?
Everyone knows animal advocacy groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals and Farm Sanctuary think so.
But what is more surprising is that so do some doctors. In fact, the only
two doctors in the United States whose documented studies have successfully
reduced heart disease - the number one killer of American adults - advocate
strict vegetarian diets.
According to the August 1999 issue of the American Journal of Cardiology, in
studies done by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn of Cleveland, patients become
"heart attack proof" after adhering to an exclusively vegetarian
diet. Subjects experienced cholesterol levels below 150, which no one has ever
documented doing before.
Frustrated with a de-emphasis on prevention in the medical community, Esselstyn
said he sought to find a means to prevent heart attacks altogether rather than
treat its symptoms.
"... It is clear that the goal of cardiology has become the relief of pain
and unpleasant symptoms in the face of progressive disability and often death
from disease," Esselstyn's study reads.
His studies found people who consume animal products are 40 percent more
vulnerable to cancer. In addition, meat-eaters are also at increased risk for
other ailments, including "stroke, obesity, appendicitis, osteoporosis,
arthritis, diabetes and food poisoning."
The largest longitudinal study of its kind, Esselstyn tracked patients with
severe coronary artery disease for 12 years after they gave up meat.
"These people had been told by prominent cardiologists to go home and
die," Esselstyn said. Twelve years later, after adopting a
plant-based diet, the patients experienced no further heart problems.
President of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons in 1991 and a
graduate of Yale University, Esselstyn is a staunch believer that the phrase,
"this little bit can't hurt," with regard to fatty foods like meat,
is deadly.
Every little bit does hurt, according to Esselstyn who likened eating small
amounts of animal products occasionally to pouring small amounts of gasoline on
a "raging brush fire."
Rates of heart disease in America are due almost solely to poor nutrition and a
"hideous toxic food environment," Esselstyn said. Calling the food
pyramid "ridiculous," Esselstyn maintained the only way to prevent
heart disease is with a plant-based diet.
BUILDING A CASE FOR VEGETARIANISM
As research showing animal products cause disease continues to mount, animal
rights groups are using those studies as ammunition to combat what they see as
the unethical treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. Specifically,
animal advocates point to mad cow disease as a reason to turn to
vegetarianism.
"Mad cow opens a window onto the complete and total disdain that farmers
have for the natural lives of animals," said Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vegan
campaign coordinator. "When people learn that cows are being fed to
cows, they're horrified."
"Everyone is pretty sad in general that so many animals have been killed
by not only mad cow disease, but by the suspicion that they have it," said
Circulation Manager of the Vegetarian Resource Group Drew Nelson. Nelson,
who has been a vegan since adolescence, said in addition, because of his lifestyle,
he has a perfect bill of health. "Vegans actually have higher levels
of iron in general than meat-eaters," Nelson said.
MAD COW DISEASE
Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is best known for
devastating the British cattle industry since the 1980s. Spread by feeding
cow-parts to cows, Mad cow disease is a fatal brain disorder afflicting
livestock. Its cause is unknown. An agent kills cow brain cells, forming
sponge-like holes in the brain. The cow behaves strangely and eventually dies.
In the early `90s, a brain disorder in humans, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, was
linked to eating beef from cows infected with BSE.
One of the reasons mad cow is so alarming is the agent that causes mad cow
cannot be killed with disinfectant or heat. Once it is ingested, it can lay
dormant in a person for as many as 15 years before symptoms appear. After symptoms surface, those sickened will
die in a year or less. Symptoms include paranoia, problems with hearing and
vision and memory loss. Eventually, sufferers lapse into a coma and die.
This year, two patients died at a Colorado hospital from Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease and doctors are concerned other patients may have been exposed because
sterilization may not stave off the disease, according to a hospital spokeswoman.
Although officials are calling the disease "mad cow-like" rather than
confirming that mad cow is probably the cause, animal rights activists claim
the disease is the human variant of mad cow, caused by ingesting infected
cattle tissue.
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
"Objective" Wildlife
Experts?
by Stu Chaifetz
www.HonorandNonViolence.com
"Objective"
Rutgers Professor admits to receiving $120,000 from pro-hunting State Agency.
On March 27, Larry Katz, professor of animal science at Rutgers University,
gave a speech at the Statehouse in Trenton regarding deer management in our
state. During the Q&A section of the meeting, Stuart Chaifetz,
co-founder of the League of Animal Protection Voters, stated that he had filed
a
Freedom of Information Act request with the NJ Division of Fish, Game and
Wildlife to discover how much money Fish and Game had given to Mr Katz.
Chaifetz then asked, because Fish and Game had not responded to the request,
that Mr Katz reveal the financial interest himself.
There are two simple facts to this issue:
1. Larry Katz has, in editorials and in public meetings across our state,
promoted hunting, and the expansion of hunting opportunities.
2. Larry Katz has, in the past six years, received $120,000 from the NJ
Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, the state agency that promotes and profits
from the sale of hunting licenses.
Fish and Game gave the money to Katz for research into finding reproductive
control for deer. This is interesting because Fish and Game has been a long
time foe of birth control for deer, and even more interesting because Mr. Katz
has stated publicly that birth control won't work, which he then leads into a
support for hunting. Just one example of this is an op-ed piece that ran
in the Star-Ledger on Feb. 16, titled "Until Deer Contraception Works, We
Must Hunt". It contained the following:
"We must consider laws to allow bow hunting in public parks and to modify
the 450-foot distance requirement from buildings for bow hunters. We also
need to educate landowners and property managers to develop effective wildlife
management plans."
The editorial signature stated that Larry Katz is the "associate director
of Rutgers University's New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Center for
Wildlife Damage Control."
Fish and Game has produced a document titled: "Governor's Report On Deer
Management In New Jersey". On page 21 it contains the following
recommendations for the NJ state legislature:
* "Amend the law to allow bow hunting for deer within 450 feet of
buildings."
* "Lands purchased with public funds, such as dedicated open space
monies, should be required to have wildlife management plans that include deer
control and management elements."
* "Additional financial support should be provided for the New
Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Center for Wildlife Damage
Control."
Chaifetz questions whether this is Quid Pro Quo, or a coincidence.
"However," states Chaifetz, "it is my opinion that Rutgers
has thrown away all of its objectivity and credibility when it comes to the
issue of deer management in our state."
In the last line of his article, Katz wrote that all parties involved with the
deer issue should "... communicate with one another civilly and
honestly."
"We will hold Mr Katz to his own words," states Chaifetz. "Full
disclosure of financial ties is mandatory to an open and fair debate about any
issue. This is especially true about deer and hunting, for hundreds of
thousands of lives are at stake, along with millions of tax payer
dollars. I do not pretend to be
unbiased when it comes to the issue of hunting, and I am honest about
this. And in the end, that is all we
are trying to do; keep the debate over hunting honest."
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
Petition For The Listing of the
Gray Whale
Under the Endangered Species Act
from Dan Spomer - wcca@olypen.com
Submitted on behalf of:
Australians for Animals
The Fund for Animals
With the support of:
The Great Whales Foundation
Cetacean Society International
Sea Sanctuary, Inc.
Humane Society of Canada
Prepared by:
D.J. Schubert, Schubert & Associates
Sue Arnold, Australians for Animals
Submitted on:
March 28, 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This petition requests that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association/National Marine Fisheries Service list the eastern North Pacific
population of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The listing is
warranted based
on adverse and continuing threats to the gray whale and its habitat. The
primary threats fall into three of the five listing criteria contained in the
Endangered Species Act.
Criteria A: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range.
Criteria E: Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Gray whales and their habitat are subject to significant threats. Gray
whales are threatened by the direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts
caused by aboriginal kills, documented and undocumented mortality, oil and gas
exploration and extractions activities, and noise impacts. Gray whales
and their habitat are under increasing threats from global warming, El-nino
events, bottom trawling, and contaminants. These factors have caused a
drastic change in the Bering and Chukchi Sea ecosystem and/or have adversely
affected the abundance and composition of benthic amphipods - the primary food
supply of the gray whale. As specialist bottom feeders, changes in
benthic amphipod abundance, composition, and availability can have significant
impacts on gray whale survival. While
several of these factors have individually significant impacts, cumulatively
the extent and severity of the impacts indisputably support a listing of this
population.
The historic and recent bias toward the killing of female and immature gray
whales by aboriginal groups has resulted in a male bias in the population and
the reduction or elimination of younger age-specific cohorts. These
impacts will reduce population productivity for years to come. Though the
number of whales killed by aboriginal groups has historically been considered
sustainable, the cumulative impacts of all current natural and anthropogenic
threats increase the effect of each kill to the well being of the
overall population.
Documented gray whale mortalities caused by ship strikes, entanglements with
fishing gear, disease, predation, and strandings are minimum estimates.
Gray whale mortality reporting requirements and stranding networks are either
non-existent or incomplete. The number of undocumented mortalities
has not been estimated and is not considered in gray whale management.
An increase in sea surface temperature attributable to global warming and the
increased frequency of El-Nino events have caused, among other things, a
reduction in primary production resulting in a decline in carbon flux to the
benthos and a subsequent decrease in benthic amphipods. Benthic amphipod
stock collapse of 30 and 50 percent have been documented in the Chirikov Basin
in 1986-87, 1990-94, and 1998-99 with the total decline likely exceeding 50
percent in some areas. Despite the importance of benthic amphipods to
gray whales and other marine mammals, amphipod stocks have not been subject to
monitoring since 1988.
Amphipod population recovery to a pre-disturbance condition takes tens to
hundreds of years assuming the habitat is still suitable to facilitate
recovery. Successional processes result in the recolonization of the site
with smaller sized and less preferred amphipod species. Increasing sea
temperatures also favor the smaller, less preferred species to the detriment of
the gray whale.
Changes in storm frequency and intensity and the decrease in the extent and
duration of sea ice (9 percent decline per decade since the 1960s) has also
reduced carbon flux to the benthic amphipods by reducing the frequency of
sediment resuspension and reducing primary production.
Changes in ocean currents caused by rising temperatures result in changes in
sediment size which directly affects the suitability of habitat for amphipods,
thereby exacerbating amphipod decline.
Excessive and extensive bottom trawling has destroyed benthic amphipods,
altered nutrient cycles, and destroyed or degraded amphipod habitat.
Increased oil and gas exploration and extraction activities and toxic
contaminants from multiple sources (i.e., industrial, agricultural) threaten
the health and viability of benthic amphipod populations. Such toxins can
kill amphipods, reduce their productivity, or destroy their habitat. The
ingestion of
contaminated amphipods and inhalation of oil vapors can also harm gray whales.
The decline in benthic amphipods had direct and immediate impacts on the
survival and viability of the gray whale population. These impacts
include a significant increase in mortality, evidence of starvation,
substantial increase in stranding, and a severe reduction in production since
1999.
Criteria D: The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
The removal of the gray whale from the list of threatened and endangered
species under the Endangered Species Act in 1994 was premature and motivated
more by politics than by science. As a result of that action, the gray
whale and its habitat have been left largely without protection. This is
both a function of inadequate laws and the deliberate misinterpretation of
certain laws by the U.S. government.
The protective provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act are not effective
as they permit the incidental take of gray whales associated with industrial
activities, have failed to prevent the resumption of whaling by the Makah, and
provide absolutely no protection to gray whale habitat. Moreover, the
Potential Biological Removal level calculated for the gray whale as required by
the Marine Mammal Protection Act is not sustainable, is not based on valid
population growth dynamics, and will cause the extirpation of the population.
The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the
International Whaling Commission failed, due to the U.S. government's
misinterpretation of international policies, to prevent Makah whaling and do
not provide any protection to gray whale habitat.
The National Environmental Policy Act has failed to provide a mechanism for the
protection of the gray whale and its habitat. Furthermore, the U.S.
government has entirely ignored the Washington State Endangered Species Act
thereby rendering it ineffective in protecting the gray whale.
The provision of the Endangered Species Act that requires the development of a
plan to monitor the gray whale population post-delisting has not protected the
gray whale or its habitat. Not only did the government fail to design a
comprehensive monitoring plan, but also failed to fully fund or implement
the plan that it did develop. As a result, stock monitoring strategies
are inadequate to determine population size; population estimates are uncertain
and unreliable; the viability and abundance of benthic amphipods in the Bering
and Chukchi Seas and the spatial and temporal variability in
ecosystem processes are unknown; and, Russian data (if any exists) on amphipod
abundance are unavailable. As a consequence, the government's 1999
determination that the population was stable and secure based on the results of
the plan was unfounded.
The evidence provided in the petition to support the listing request is
comprehensive and indisputable. The documented decline in benthic amphipods
is sufficient reason alone to list the gray whale under the Endangered Species
Act. Combined with the multitude of other threats to the gray whale and
its habitats, the lack of any adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect the
population or its habitat, and a failed monitoring program, there can be no
question that this population should again be afforded the protection provided
by a listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Contact: Sue Arnold, Australians for Animals
sarnold@byronit.com
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
Love for St. Bernard Meat
Angers Swiss
by Paul Eckert
from Bob Chorush -bob@wolfenet.com
BEIJING (Reuters) - The Chinese have taken a
liking to a revered symbol of Switzerland -- the St. Bernard dog -- but the
Swiss are not flattered.
Gentle giants famed for rescuing people in the Alpine snows of Europe, the St.
Bernard's size and docile nature have become a major selling point in China,
where dog meat has long been a popular delicacy known as "fragrant meat.''
Driven by increasing demand to boost meat yields, dog breeders have been drawn
to Saint Bernards because they are huge, resistant to disease and prolific,
with annual litters of around eight to twelve puppies, double that of other
dogs.
In a promotional video, a state-run Saint Bernard breeding farm in the
northeastern city of Shenyang praises the big dogs as perfect for breeding
because they are gentle and don't bite
The video boasts that investing in Saint Bernard farms is ''more lucrative than
pig farming and livestock breeding'' and says that 48 breeding stations have
been built in 10 Chinese provinces with a total of 5,000 Saint Bernards.
The farm cross-breeds St. Bernards imported from Switzerland with local dogs.
The dogs are then sold to brokers at a cost of about $1.00 for 500 grams (18
ounces), it said.
The idea of a national symbol becoming Chinese canine cuisine has sparked
strong protests from the Swiss public and from animal rights activists.
This year, a petition signed by 11,000 St. Bernard breeders and owners
worldwide demanding a halt to the trade was submitted to the Swiss government
by SOS St. Bernard International, a Geneva-based group.
The Swiss embassy in Beijing has declined to comment on the issue.
Animal welfare organizations, like the International Fund for Animal Welfare
(IFAW), are outraged that Saint Bernards are being bred for their meat and have
petitioned the Chinese government to introduce its first animal cruelty laws.
"If the Chinese cannot understand why Swiss people get so upset that they
are eating St. Bernards, I would ask that same question: If Swiss people eat
China's panda, how would Chinese feel?'' Grace Ge Gabriel, IFAW China director,
told Reuters Television.
But that sentiment has not kept diners away from the Sino-Korean "Dog-Meat
King'' restaurant, one of Beijing's largest dog restaurants. From braised
dog paws to stir-fried dog chops to boiled tail, the restaurant in central
Beijing serves more than 50 dog dishes prepared in a variety of rich sauces and
styles.
"Chinese people who own dogs would never eat their own dogs, they really
love them and treat them like their own children,'' said customer Zhang Lei.
"But these dogs we're eating are bred specially for their meat -- they're
like chickens, sheep and cows, so people don't feel bad about eating them,''
the 25-year-old worker said.
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
The Big-Headed Cat
by parogers@mindspring.com
I watch him sleep.
The big-headed cat with the large white feet.
His whole body rises and falls
with his breathing.
And I hear his breath
coming hard and fast.
Dreams of another time.
I do not wake him.
I watch him still;
with ever-warming eyes.
I listen to the breaks in the breathing
with ears that ache;
catching changes in the rhythm.
I close my eyes and remember.
Dreams of another time.
You don't have to stop
I tell myself in the midst
of memories.
I am aware that he is watching me
remembering.
We have shared so much.
Moonlight falling through open windows
lighting our way down the hall
to bath and box.
Sunlight promising perfect naps to come
after hard hours spent contemplating
squirrels in the tree
and why that paragraph just
doesn't work.
And, of course, the click of cabinets,
the thump and rush of water,
another click and metal hitting metal.
At last.
A cup of tea for me;
a warm bowl of cereal for him.
His watchful eyes;
a lesson in patience and knowing.
I am watching once again;
smiling over my tea.
He does not look up from the bowl.
Even now.
Even now there are priorities.
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
Quote To Remember
"I am vegetarian because I abhor the treatment of simpler life forms. There may have been a time and place when
mankind needed animal flesh to survive. That time is neither here nor
now. Ultimately vegetarianism cannot fail to prevail."
~
Lew Ayres: star of All Quiet On
The
Western Front, an antiwar movie of many decades ago
«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»
Susan Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Animal Rights Online
P O Box 7053
Tampa, Fl 33673-7053
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/
-=Animal Rights Online=-
&
Advisory Board Member, Animal Rights Network Inc.,
not-for-profit publisher of The Animals' Agenda Magazine
http://www.animalsagenda.org/
The Animals' Agenda Magazine: WebEdition
«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»
(Permission Granted To Quote/Forward/Reprint/Repost This
Newsletter In
Whole Or In Part with credit given to EnglandGal@aol.com)
* Please forward this to a friend who you think
might be interested in subscribing to our newsletter.
* ARO gratefully accepts and
considers articles for publication
from subscribers on veg*anism and animal issues.
Send submissions to JJswans@aol.com