A n i m a l   W r i t e s © sm

                              The official ANIMAL RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter

  

    Publisher   ~ EnglandGal@aol.com                          Issue # 06/24/01

        Editor    ~ JJswans@aol.com

    Journalists ~ Park StRanger@aol.com

                     ~ MichelleRivera1@aol.com

                     ~ sbest1@elp.rr.com

 

 

    THE SEVEN ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:

  

    1  ~ Canned Hunts: Fair Chase or Foul Play?

    2  ~ 50 Major U.S. Research Labs Hit With Massive USDA Complaint

    3  ~ Texas Floods Drown 30,000 Caged Animals

    4  ~ Washington Post Does It Again

    5  ~ Powerful Book Website Opens

    6  ~ Mad Human Disease

    7  ~ Memorable Quote

  

*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`

Canned Hunts: Fair Chase or Foul Play?

source - www.animalunderworld.com

 

With so many controversial elements, the definition is often more elusive than the animals hunted.

 

What is a “canned hunt”?  It depends who you ask.

 

To say that it’s an operation in which animals are shot in an enclosure doesn’t really answer the question. For example, if shooting an animal in a small pen is a canned hunt, what about on a hundred acres?  Or a thousand?

 

Some claim that there are other considerations: Is the terrain flat grassland, or are there woods and other cover? Are the animals tame? Are they fed by humans? Are they healthy? Does the ranch allow baiting or the use of hounds? How are animals tracked? Do hunting stands oversee the area?  Can the animals avoid being killed, or are they nothing more than target practice?

 

Hunters speak of “fair chase.” They say that the defining element in hunting is not the kill but the chase — tracking an animal for hours, or even days, in hopes of setting up the perfect shot. But canned hunts, which are condemned by pro- and anti-hunting groups alike, turn the notion of fair

chase upside-down: patrons are guaranteed a kill, making a mockery of sport hunting. For example, the Boone and Crockett Club, a hunting organization founded by Teddy Roosevelt, has called canned hunts “unfair” and “unsportsmanlike.” Other pro-hunting organizations label these operations nothing more than “canned shoots.”

 

The most obvious example of a canned hunt is the wanton slaughter of a “trophy” animal in a small enclosure. But if the enclosure is thousands of square acres, is that still a canned hunt? Maybe.  Often the animals on hunting ranches are tame, having been hand-raised.  Animals that instinctively would flee humans, instead approach them seemingly without concern. The same truck that brings the animals’ daily feed also brings the trophy-seekers. Fleeing animals are chased by trucks. Hounds corner exotic game or tree big cats. Drugged animals, too disoriented to run, are released on the premises. Animals are kicked out of cages for waiting patrons. Some refuse to budge and are shot nonetheless.

 

In short, there is no escape.

  

*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`

50 Major U.S. Research Labs

Hit With Massive USDA Complaint

from Michael Budkie - SAEN@worldnet.att.net

 

MADISON, WI - A national research watchdog organization has filed the largest official complaint in U.S. history against 50 nationally-known laboratories that perform animal experimentation - including Harvard, the Salk Institute, University of California, Johns Hopkins and Princeton.

 

Details of the exhaustive complaint were made public Thursday in a series of news conferences at different laboratories. Photographs of abuse - secreted out of these labs by workers - were also made public.

 

Filed by SAEN, a research watchdog organization based in Cincinnati, the complaint alleges laboratories deliberately withhold information from government oversight agencies, and abuse primates during experimentation by denying food and water and confining them to restraint chairs. 

"Fifty prestigious institutions are systematically violating federal laws and abusing thousands of animals in sadistic, wasteful testing," said Michael A. Budkie, A.H.T., Executive Director, SAEN.

 

Laboratories at Salk, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UCLA, and dozens of other sites are torturing animals and lying about the experiments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture," he added.

 

"We believe that these 50 labs may only be the tip of the iceberg," said Budkie. "60,000 primates suffer and die in U.S. labs every year.  These findings are only the beginning of our investigations."

 

Copies of the SAEN report and complaint are available upon request from

 Michael Budkie at: SAEN@worldnet.att.net   

 Phone: (513) 575-5517

 

*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`

Texas Floods Drown 30,000 Caged Animals

Source - In Defense of Animals

From Artemisd123@hotmail.com

 

During the weekend of June 9 and 10, more than 30,000 mice, rats, dogs, and primates used in research at Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston were left to drown in their cages as floodwaters in the city of Houston, Texas, rose.  [When fully

counted, 78 monkeys, 18 adult dogs, 17 puppies and several hundred rabbits were among the dead animals in the basement, which housed the center's main animal care facility, as well as mice, rats, and rabbits.]

 

Apparently, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) allows research institutions in flood-prone regions to warehouse animals in basements without providing a plan for their evacuation in the event of flooding. NIH also consistently promises to reimburse such institutions for "losses," thereby removing any incentive for properly caring for the tens of thousands of animals in the researchers' possession.

 

Animals are not dust mops or office supplies, and NIH must not allow them to be stored in basements. NIH should also require federally funded institutions to have a plan for the evacuation of animals in the event of emergencies such as fire, flooding, etc. What's more important, NIH must require these institutions to have animal care personnel on hand at all times.

 

No one can reasonably argue that with an annual budget of $310 million and $60 million, respectively, Baylor College of Medicine and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston couldn't afford a security guard!  Human patients at the Texas Medical Center were not left to drown in their beds! Animals used in research should Be afforded the same consideration.

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Please write NIH's director and demand that the agency require institutions to file an evacuation plan, house animals above ground, and hire personnel to monitor animals 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Please also write your senators and representatives and ask that

oversight hearings be held on this issue.

 

 Dr. Ruth L. Kirschstein, Director

 National Institutes of Health

 9000 Rockville Pike

 Bethesda, MD 20892

 Fax: 301-402-2700

 kirschsr@od1tm1.od.nih.gov

 

 <> <> <> <> <>

 

Let's also encourage the university to switch to non-animal and more humane research by sending the following letter, or one similar but in your own words:

 

 Address letters to the following:

 

 Ralph D. Feigin, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer

 Baylor College of Medicine

 One Baylor Plaza

 Houston, TX 77030

 Fax: 713-798-8811

 rfeigin@bcm.tmc.edu

 

 James W. Patrick, Ph.D., Vice President and Dean for Research

 Baylor College of Medicine

 One Baylor Plaza

 Houston, TX 77030

 Fax:  713-798-5902

 jpatrick@bcm.tmc.edu

 

 James T. Willerson, President

 University of Texas, Health Science Center

 P.O. Box 20036

 Houston, TX 77225-0036

 Fax: 713-500-3026

 James.T.Willerson@uth.tmc.edu

 

 *Date*

    

Dear *_________* ,

 

First, I would like to express my sympathies regarding the great loss of life in the form of the animals who drowned during the flooding which resulted from Tropical Storm Allison on 16 June 2001.

 

At this time, with animal cages empty and remodeling of laboratories necessary, I would like to suggest that this is an exceptional time to move your university in to the 21st century by implementing innovative humane methods of research. As the book 'The Principles of Humane Experimental Techniques' pointed out in 1959, humane methods of research call for the  reduction, refinement and replacement of animals in scientific research.

 

Currently, there are a multitude of valid alternatives to using animals in biomedical research.  Many research techniques which do not use live animals have proven to be much more reliable and less costly than their inhumane counterparts - research techniques which do use live animals.

 

As you likely know, the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at John's Hopkins University has an extensive database on-line at http://www.altwebsearch.com and expert advisors who would be able to guide you about current, cutting-edge humane research techniques.

 

You are in a unique position at this time to recoup and redirect your university's research.  Instead of replacing the animals who drowned with other sentient and vulnerable live animals, and starting over collecting data, I implore you to seek to improve research overall, and the nature of research techniques by replacing live animals.

 

 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,

 Sincerely,

 

 *Your name*

 

 cc: Ruth Kirschstein, Acting Director

 National Institutes of Health

 9000 Rockville Pike

 Bethesda, MD 20892

 Fax: 301-402-2700

 kirschsr@od1tm1.od.nih.gov

 

*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`

Washington Post Does It Again

 

Last month, the Washington Post did that story on IBP and other slaughterhouses, perhaps the issue's first national exposure in the mainstream media, and it did a live online interview with Gail Eisnitz the same day that story broke - now this!! Way to go, Washington Post!

 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12663-2001Jun17.html

 

In Pig Farming, Growing Concern

By Marc Kaufman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, June 18, 2001; Page A1

 

YORKVILLE, Ill. – Inside each of John Kellogg's barns, long rows of grunting, snorting hogs fill every available space. The rows contain 100 animals – all pregnant or soon to be. Every animal faces the same direction in a scene of orderliness seldom associated with pigs.

 

The animals are not lining up by choice: Each stands inside a narrow metal crate. The pigs, which can reach 600 pounds, will spend much of their three or four years of adult life inside these crates, unable to turn around or even lie down fully because the stalls are just two feet wide. Only

when caring for piglets will the sows live outside them for long, and then in different metal crates only slightly wider so they can recline to nurse.

 

This farm outside Chicago is by all accounts a model of pork industry efficiency, cleanliness and productivity, and the metal "gestation crates" are nothing unusual in the nation's highly industrialized pork business. In fact, Kellogg's stalls are the norm for the fast-growing industry, holding most of the 5 million sows that give birth to 100 million piglets yearly for the ham, bacon and pork chops on America's plates.

 

But critics of this kind of intensive pig farming – people ranging from animal welfare activists to academic researchers and some big pork buyers – have been raising increasingly pointed and sometimes emotional objections to the crates. Some call the practice inherently cruel, some call it offensive because the confinement produces abnormal behaviors in relatively intelligent animals, and some worry it could endanger the pork industry if consumers begin to focus on it. In the name of progress, the critics ask, has the industry created a callous system that many people will find objectionable?

 

Those concerns are being translated into efforts to ban or curtail use of the crates. The European Union, where animal welfare is a hot political issue, is close to adopting legislation that would phase out the stalls within 10 years – a decision that could have international trade implications. In Florida, American animal welfare groups are collecting signatures to place a similar statewide ban on the use of sow crates on next year's ballot, as an opening shot in a national campaign here.

 

A ban on gestation crates is also part of a new American Humane Association certification process for pork (and other farm products) introduced last year. The voluntary program, which is approved by the Agriculture Department, allows pig producers willing to avoid controversial farm practices to place the group's "Free Farmed" label on their meat and poultry.

 

 [snip]

 

"Farmers treat their animals well because that's just good business," said Paul Sundberg, a veterinarian and National Pork Producers Council vice president. "The key to sow welfare isn't whether they are kept in individual crates or group housing, but whether the system used is well managed."

 

Sundberg contended that "science tells us that she [a sow] doesn't even seem to know that she can't turn. . . . She wants to eat and feel safe, and she can do that very well in individual stalls."

 

But Sundberg acknowledged there is active scientific dispute over the effects on sows – although he also complained some of the protest comes from vegetarians who don't want people to eat meat at all.

 

 [snip]

 

"If you look at the wide range of factory farm abuses, you can make a strong case that this is the worst of all confinement methods because it lasts so long," said Wayne Pacelle, whose U.S. Humane Association, along with Farm Sanctuary, are involved in the Florida effort. "That's certainly what the Europeans have concluded, and we want people to know that."

 

The industry and its critics are not proposing larger stalls to resolve the issue.  Instead, some pork producers and Texas Tech University have experimented with outdoor and group systems for raising sows that are as effective and productive as the stalls, McGlone said. On his research farm outside Lubbock, sows and their piglets live on fields outdoors, with small metal hoop huts for protection.

 

"The industry may not think that crates are a problem, but what if consumers disagree?" McGlone said. "It's time to seriously look at the alternatives."

 

*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`

Powerful Book Website Opens

http://www.powerfulbook.com

 

The book website for ETERNAL TREBLINKA: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust is now officially open.

 

The website (www.powerfulbook.com ) provides a comprehensive introduction to the book's examination of disturbing parallels between the way the Nazis treated their victims and the way our society treats animals, as well as of people on both sides of the Holocaust who have become animal advocates.

 

The site offers excerpts from the book, chapter synopses, a list of supporters, early reactions to the idea of the book, the book's epigraph by Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, and the Foreword by Lucy Kaplan, the daughter of Holocaust survivors.

 

Dr. Patterson, a social historian and Holocaust educator, is the author of ANTI-SEMITISM: The Road to the Holocaust and Beyond, THE OXFORD 50th ANNIVERSARY BOOK OF THE UNITED NATIONS, and co-author with Marian Filar of the forthcoming memoir, ANGEL ON MY SHOULDER: From Concentration Camp to Carnegie Hall.

 

For further information about ETERNAL TREBLINKA, visit

http://www.powerfulbook.com

 

*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`

Mad Human Disease

by Natasha Canali Wood - futurevet28@hotmail.com

 

How is it

That we can make an animal into a machine

And feel no remorse?

Assign a number to its face

And line it up behind the others

And slaughter it

Without a trace of guilt . . .

 

How is it

That we can turn a loving mother

Into a baby-producing machine,

Steal her newborns away

And stifle her cries of grief

And say she doesn’t know

Doesn’t care

Doesn’t feel . . .

 

How can we cram them into boxes and cages,

Let them lie in their own waste

Crippled, swollen, deformed—

And shovel them

And drag them

And chain them

Like they’re nothing more than broken-down cars

or scraps of garbage . . .

 

How can we grind up their remains

And feed it to the others—

Watch them take their fill

Of this make-believe grass

Then stumble away sick

While we count our profits

And laugh like nothing else matters . . .

 

How is it

That we see their gentle eyes,

Sense their gentle souls,

Yet still push it all out

And close the iron doors

And let destiny take its course—

Or at least the destiny we’ve created for them—

So we can have stomachs

Full of blood and fear and pain . . .

 

The half-dead body

Swinging from the hanger

Welcomes them

One by one—

They bow their heads

And buckle their knees

While the blue sky outside beckons

and the free birds sing.

But all they see—all they have ever known

Is that one ray of hazy light

That streams in through a crack in the rafters.

Do they feel there must be something more,

Something outside this cold, iron-rusted hell?

Or do they simply go on counting the days

Never dreaming that because of money and greed and gluttony

They were put on this earth

To die—

 

How is it

That we can start a plague

And blame everything but ourselves

And watch them fall

And try to get up

And fall again

And turn on their cagemates

And turn wild and fierce

And then decide they must be "destroyed"

—yes, just like that, destroyed—

So that a whole new generation can take their place

And we can be "safe" . . .

 

The sea of bodies goes up in flames . . .

The smoke of death rises black into the sky . . .

And as the putrid stench fills our nostrils,

We experience a fleeting moment

Of what they endured their entire lives . . .

And the animal-machines are at one with the grass and the earth

For the first time.

 

And then, maybe then,

When the smoke has cleared and the ashes have blown into the wind,

We see that they are not machines,

That they are not stupid beasts—

But are victims of our bloody creation

And our savage design . . .

 

And then we watch the iron doors slam shut once again

And return to feed our sagging stomachs

And go back to our enviable lives

To complain about all the things

That don’t need to be complained about . . .

 

How is it

That we can close our eyes—

Maim them—

Taunt them—

Torture them—

Rape them—

And justify it all by saying

That they were put on this earth for our use?

How many billions more must suffer

Before we stop to ask:

 

How is it

That we still haven’t found the cure

For this Mad Human Disease?

 

*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`

Quote To Remember

 

  "My refusing to eat meat occasioned an inconveniency, and I have been

            frequently chided for my singularity. But my light repast allows for greater

            progress, for greater clearness of head and quicker comprehension."

                                                                        ~ Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

  

«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»

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

 

 

 

 

 

Return to the ARO Newsletter Archives

Return to the ARO Homepage

1