A n i m
a l W r i t e s © sm
The
official ANIMAL RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Publisher ~ EnglandGal@aol.com
Issue # 10/07/01
Editor ~ JJswans@aol.com
Journalists ~ Park StRanger@aol.com
~
MichelleRivera1@aol.com
~ sbest1@elp.rr.com
THE SEVEN ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ The Nashville Network Warps Ahead to the
Twentieth Century
by Park StRanger@aol.com
2 ~ Victories For Animals In the U.S. House of Representatives
3 ~ Need A Vacation?
4 ~ Animal Experimentation: Is it Science?
5 ~ Livestock Are The Problem
6 ~ Where Have They Gone?
7 ~ Memorable Quote
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`
~1~
The Nashville Network Warps Ahead
to the Twentieth Century
by Park StRanger@aol.com
As someone who lived the first three decades of
his life in Knoxville, Tennessee, I was happy to see the Star Trek Next
Generation marathon on TNN this week, and to learn that ST Next Gen will be a
regular program on this station. It was a welcome change from the usual
offensive and embarrassing TNN fare of wrestling, hunting and fishing. A
show about a future generation of more intelligent humans is greatly
appreciated.
The several Star Trek television series have always featured stories dealing
with the issues of vegetarianism and the concept of rights extended to other
beings. I grew up on the original Star Trek and I suspect that Spock, the
vegetarian Vulcan science officer, might have been an important
influence. It seems logical.
This morning I watched one of the best episodes of ST Next Gen which explored
the idea of rights of sentient beings. It was the episode which debated
the fate of the android character, Commander Data, whether he was a sentient
being capable of determining his own fate, or property, a machine owned by the
Federation of Planets. A central issue was slavery and the exploitation
of other species by man. In defending Data's rights, Captain Jean Luc
Picard pointed out that the word "machine" should not be used to
denigrate beings of artificial intelligence, because humans are just another
type of machine, running on electro-chemical reactions.
Of all the definitions I have seen of humans, and how we differ from other
species, I enjoy this idea put forward by Star Trek....that we are a species
capable of recognizing the rights, desires, and the freedoms possessed by other
creatures.
Although the production designers of Star Trek never made a big deal about it,
all the Federation officers and crew were vegetarians who ate meals from food
synthesizers. The meat entrees were from replicated molecules and not
from factory farms. There was no barn in the aft section of the
starship. And I am left thinking...If in some bright, imagined future, we
can view alien species as having basic rights, that implies that
somewhere along the way we have granted basic rights to animals.
And that's why I am a fan of star trek, because it presents a future I wish
could come true.
Let's hope that the people who usually watch The Nashville Network will learn
from this program and come to appreciate the Federation's Prime Directive of
noninterference with other species and cultures.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~2~
Victories For Animals
In the U.S. House of Representatives
Yesterday
(10/04/01), in a series of extraordinary victories for animals, the U.S. House
of Representatives passed four animal protection amendments to H.R. 2646, The
Farm Security Act of 2001 (also known as the Farm Bill):
1. Downed Animals amendment:
The Downed Animal Protection amendment, introduced by Reps. Gary Ackerman
(D-NY) and Amo Houghton (R-NY), will prohibit stockyards and other intermediate
markets from transferring or selling farm animals who cannot walk because of
illness or injury. The passage of this amendment is especially heartening after
over a decade of work toward its passage by animal protectionists.
2. Anti-Cockfighting amendment:
The Anti-Cockfighting amendment, introduced by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
and Tom Tancredo (R-CO), closes the loophole that allows interstate shipment of
fighting birds from states where the activity is illegal to one of the three
states (OK, LA and NM) where the practice is still legal. The loophole creates
a smokescreen for cockfighters and has allowed the cruel and barbaric practice
to thrive as an underground, and, in some places, above-ground industry for
years.
3. Animal Fighting amendment:
Also offered by Reps. Blumenauer and Tancredo, the Animal Fighting
amendment will ban exports of fighting birds or dogs and increase penalties for
any violation of the anti-animal fighting section of the Animal Welfare Act to
two years in prison and a $15,000 fine from one year and a $5,000 fine.
4. Humane Slaughter amendment:
The Humane Slaughter amendment, introduced by Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD),
addresses the gross cruelties inflicted upon animals in slaughterhouses
nationwide, as they are often skinned and dismembered while still alive and
conscious. The amendment calls upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to strongly enforce the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, which requires
that animals be rendered insensible to pain before they are slaughtered.
A similar measure has already passed the Senate.
The passage of these amendments to the Farm Bill marks the most productive
single day of action ever in the House. All of your phone calls to your members
of Congress in support of these amendments have really paid off. Stay
tuned for upcoming information on downed animals and animal fighting in the
Senate!
HUMANElines
A project of The Humane Society of the United States
and The Fund for Animals (202)955-3666 humanelines@hsus.org
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~3~
Need a Vacation?
Veggievacations.com
(http://www.veggievacations.com - IVU Supporter) presents a week of SOY based
VEGETARIAN cooking with Chef MARIE OSER. Chef Oser has her own weekly newspaper
column THE ENLIGHTENED KITCHEN, is a feature presenter on Vegsource.com, and is
featured on Vegtv.com.
Spend a week at the beautiful RED MOUNTAIN SPA in Utah from November 26th
through December 3rd. Highlights include:
* Daily Cooking lessons with Marie highlighting Soy based vegetarian cuisine.
* Daily hikes and or bike rides.
* Full use of the Fitness center with ongoing daily classes that include yoga,
aerobics, weights, kick boxing, wellness, stress management, creative
expression, body composition testing, etc.
* All meals and lodging included in the rate.
* Harvest Foods evening of different Gourmet vegetarian foods.
* Book signing evening with Chef Oser.
* Informal group discussions on various topics.
Combine learning new lifestyle techniques with healthy recipes in what SHAPE
magazine calls "the best outdoor fitness program on earth...located in the
most scenic area of any spa" Land rates begin of at $802.50pp for the
week.
Questions and reservation: Stephen Abelsohn, We are located in Ashland Oregon.
1 800 443 9216 stephen@roguetravel.com
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~4~
Animal Experimentation: Is It
Science?
by Nick Drake, from European Vegetarian - Issue 2/3/00
Source:
http://ivu.org/evu/english/news/news002/animal_experimentation.html
This
article looks at the use of animals in experimental procedures and attempts to
understand whether or not such work is scientific, i.e. that experimenting upon
live animals falls within accepted definitions of good scientific practice. The
term 'animal experimentation' is used in preference to 'vivisection' although
the two are often used synonymously: vivisection can also include
experimentation upon healthy people in order to try to study human disease; but
this controversial topic is not dealt with here.
Furthermore, no attempt is made to discuss a wide range of specific examples of
experiments. Many individuals and organizations have written about such work
many times before and it is available to the public. Instead, basic principles
of the scientific method are introduced with the aim of answering the question:
'Are animal experiments scientific?'
What is science?
A concise definition of science is 'an organized and systematic activity that
gathers knowledge about the world and condenses that knowledge into testable
laws and principles'. The eminent biologist, E. O. Wilson, defines five
diagnostic steps which can distinguish science from pseudo-science:
Repeatability:
The same phenomenon is sought again, preferably by independent investigation,
and the interpretation given to it is confirmed or discarded by means of novel
analysis and experimentation.
Economy:
Information is abstracted into the simplest, most aesthetically pleasing form -
scientific abstractions are 'elegant'.
Mensuration:
Generalizations can be made unambiguous if something can be measured properly
using universally-accepted scales.
Heuristics:
The best science stimulates further discovery, often in unpredictable new
directions, and new knowledge provides an additional test of the original
principles that led to its discovery.
Consilience:
The explanations of different phenomena most likely to survive are those that
can be connected and proved consistent with one another.
Does animal experimentation follow these principles?
Scientists design experiments to investigate particular questions. This
is not possible in animal experimentation -- the animal comes as a whole,
living system. The scientific method is best applied by varying one parameter
in an experiment, ensuring everything else remains constant, and observing how
that single change affects the overall system. Animals are complex systems: we
do not know how to isolate specific properties in a living creature whilst
leaving everything else unchanged.
Animal Experimentation and the Scientific Method
Animal experimentation is not scientific. It does not adhere to the five
diagnostic steps listed above. There is no experimental model for the human
species: All species and even individuals within a species differ from each other,
and there is no known way to extrapolate accurately, reliably and repeatedly
experimental observations from one species to another.
Experiments on whole, living animals (including people) are generally not
reproducible. For example, the age of the animal can produce different,
unpredictable results from the same stimulus. The time of day or year, and the
conditions in which the animals are kept, can change the results of even simple
tests. Such results are intrinsically false within the species concerned -- it
would be meaningless to extrapolate them to another species.
Perhaps even more alarming is the choice of animal for each experiment. The
Home Office states that approximately 2.5 million animals were used in
scientific procedures in 1998 (and it's estimated that at least another 4
million were killed as 'wastage,' bred but never used in any experiment). The
vast majority of these were rats and mice. But rats and mice are not chosen
because they are the species which have the most similar biochemical reactions
to those of people, but rather because they are cheap and quick to breed.
Scientifically, one would expect experiments motivated by human illness to be
performed on people with such illnesses; the second best choice would be
healthy human volunteers; and if no person is available to act the guinea-pig,
chimpanzees and other primates are the least worst animal choice. But chimps
are expensive to keep, difficult to breed and can deliver a much worse bite
than any mouse. Science is not a major factor when choosing the subjects of
live animal experimentation. Animal experiments are not economical in the
scientific sense.
The animal experimentation 'method' works like this: A researcher tries to
model a human illness in a different species, perhaps by inoculating a
pathogenic agent into an animal. This creates an infectious disease in the
animal, different from the human version, which the researcher tries to cure
with a variety of drugs. In other words, this method introduces errors at each
step, which multiply geometrically. The probability that any cure found for the
'animal model' will work for humans with acceptably minor side effects falls
closer to zero with every action the researcher takes. Moreover, there are no
'universally-accepted scales' to allow measurements of one species' reactions
to be applied to another's. Generalizations from animal experiments are never
unambiguous.
A case may be made, however, for animal experimentation to be labeled
heuristic, since there are clear examples of serendipitous discovery. But many
of these discoveries are observations of unexpected results: a drug having the
opposite effect of that predicted, for example. Such discoveries almost always
contradict original principles or hypotheses; the work is not truly heuristic.
Modern laboratories attempt to make experiments reproducible by using animals
which are as standard as possible. Animals are fed standardized diets and kept
in as identical conditions as possible. The result is not standardized animals,
however, but abnormal, even sick animals, whose natural impulses have been
paralyzed by such standardization. It would be profoundly inaccurate to draw
analogies between such animals and human beings, most of whom manage to eat
varied diets, touch everything around them and face daily exposure to
innumerable, random substances.
Biomedical research methods
It is important to realize that there are no 'alternatives' to animal
experimentation, since such methods would be seen as equally valid and hence of
no scientific merit. There are, however, many scientific biomedical research
methods:
Cell and tissue culture techniques have many applications in research and great
potential for replacing many unsatisfactory animal procedures. For example,
substances intended for human use must undergo toxicity testing on human cell
and tissue cultures. At present, much toxicity work is still carried out on
whole, live (non-human) animals!
Epidemiology - studying diseases within whole populations can lead to huge
gains in knowledge with high accuracy and low risk. Major advances in our
understanding of, cancer and HIV, for example could be attained simply by
observing their characteristics among specific population groups. Instead, vast
sums of money are currently expended on laboratory research into cures for such
afflictions, before we have any deep understanding of their propagation through
society.
DNA profiling is certainly controversial, but will undoubtedly become a
significant tool for pharmaceutical companies. In the future it is likely that
prescriptions will be tailored to each patient based upon a DNA analysis of
their probable responses to different drugs and, in principle at least, this
could significantly cut back both animal and human testing programmes.
Computer modeling allows the researcher to explore many more possible
combinations of potential medication than any laboratory programme can offer.
In summary, the natural models for human illnesses are sick people, not healthy
animals or purpose-bred animals made sick to mimic human illnesses. Sadly,
there are many ill people in the world and many illnesses for which we still
need better prevention and/or cures. This is a situation which will not
improve while governments, universities and pharmaceutical companies continue
to misapply research efforts to animal experimentation. Researchers need to
seek out the ill, wherever they are globally, and engage with them in the
struggle to improve human health.
Conclusion
Animal experimentation is bad, lazy pseudoscience which can be replaced with
numerous, scientifically rigorous, methods, such as clinical observation,
epidemiology, cell and tissue culture studies, and mathematical models. Results
obtained from animal studies and applied to humans can only ever be interpreted
with hindsight. We can never know a priori if a substance or technique which
'works' in one species will work in another.
Animal experimentation is scientifically illogical and produces results which
cannot be reproduced freely. It does not follow the standard scientific method.
Medicine should not progress by trial and error because the 'errors' are human
and animal lives.
Interesting Quotes
'No experimenter on animals can provide a single useful fact about human
disease.' (D. A. Long, 1954, British National Institute for Medical Research)
'The idea, as I understand it, is that fundamental truths are revealed in
laboratory experimentation on lower animals and then applied to the problems of
the sick patient. Having been myself trained as a physiologist, I feel in a way
competent to assess such a claim. It is plain nonsense.' (G. Pickering, 1964,
Oxford University)
'It was by good luck that in the initial toxicity tests we used mice, because
if we had used guinea-pigs we would have concluded that penicillin is toxic.'
(Statement by Sir Howard Florey, joint Nobel Prize winner with Fleming and
Chain for the discovery of penicillin)
References:
Croce P., 1999, Vivisection or Science? An investigation into testing drugs and
safeguarding health. Zed Books, London.
The author, Nick Drake, has a background of research in the physical sciences
and has been taught scientific methodology and processes at various UK
universities.
Why is animal experimentation still tolerated in a sophisticated, civilized
world? Perhaps because such basic truths as its non-scientific nature rarely
reach the majority of people. So spread the word: Verifiable truth is of the
greatest power, and always wins eventually. (sf)
Reproduction note: This article has no copyright and may be made available
freely through any medium on a purely non-commercial basis. If you'd like
further copies, or an email version, contact cuniculus@btinternet.com
(btinternet.com)
© European Vegetarian Union - http://www.ivu.org/evu
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~5~
Livestock Are The Problem
by George Wuerthner
source: Tom Beno - tom.beno@home.com
In
a recent special issue of Wolf International Magazine on the "Global Challenge
of Living with Wolves" there are a host of articles about livestock
conflicts with wolves from around the world. All of them demonstrate quite
clearly how livestock production poses the greatest threat to wolf recovery and
restoration.
First there is the direct persecution of wolves by livestock producers-many
livestock producers or their government lackeys kill or persecute wolves.
Not so obvious are the effects of livestock production on prey. There is no
such thing as a "predator friendly" livestock operation just as there
are no "salmon friendly" dams. Dams with fish ladders still impact
salmon by changes in water flow, changes in water temperature, competition with
exotic fish that are stocked in reservoirs, and blockage of downstream migration
of fish to just name a few. No one who knows anything about the real effect of
dams on salmon would ever suggest that there are "salmon friendly"
dams. Yet we have many wolf supporters touting the benefits of "predator
friendly" beef. We even have groups like Defenders of Wildlife promoting
it.
Even if ranchers don't shoot wolves, they still have significantly impacted
them. Livestock abscond with forage, water, and space that might otherwise
support prey species. There is no free lunch, every blade of grass going into a
cow or sheep is that much less to support native prey of wolves. The resulting
decline in prey biomass is huge, and the carrying capacity of the West for
predator has been diminished to great extent by the presence of livestock -
predator friendly or otherwise.
Sometimes the effects are even more subtle. The mere presence of livestock can
socially displace some species. Elk, for instance, have been shown to avoid
places actively being grazed by livestock. This can reduce the overall carrying
capacity of the landscape for elk and hence wolves. Especially when cattle are
moved onto a range after wolves have denned and are supporting pups, the
presence of livestock and the subsequent movement of elk and other prey to
livestock-free areas can force wolves to prey on livestock as they seek to feed
their hungry young.
Yet it's remarkable how few wolf advocacy groups are willing to challenge the
livestock hegemony that affects wolf recovery. Even a group like Wolf
International appears to have unconsciously adopted the mind-set that wolves
are the problem, not livestock. The final comments to the issue from Walter
Medwid, the Executive Director, displays this pro-livestock bias." A
common theme in many of the articles is the reality of the negative impacts of
wolves on livestock around the world." I would have stated it the other
way around-a common theme of the articles is the negative impacts of livestock
on wolves around the world." Yet without apparently being aware of
it, Mr. Medwid makes ranchers and farmers appear to be the victims of wolves,
rather than stating the obvious-wolves are the victims of livestock operations.
Many of the articles in this issue discuss ways that livestock producers can
"cope" with wolves using "non-lethal" control methods. Yet
nowhere, except for a short article that I contributed, does any one suggest
that perhaps it is ranchers and other livestock producers who must change their
behavior, not the wolves.
Most of the problems of predation experienced by livestock producers are self
created by their own animal husbandry customs. Practices like putting cattle
out on ranges for weeks or months at a time without any kind of monitoring only
contributes to predator attacks. Or the mere presence of livestock, especially
if they are brought to pastures near denning sites and subsequently driving
away prey species like elk making it more difficult for wolves to find prey,
again contributes to a greater likelihood that they will prey upon livestock.
Yet nowhere do we find wolf advocacy organizations fighting to even get federal
agencies to demand that producers move livestock to non-wolf den sites to avoid
potential conflicts. If anything, federal agencies move the wolves, rather than
moving the cattle.
I know of no examples of wolf packs that have co-existed with livestock for
long periods of time without conflict. Even though predation events are
rather uncommon, what one finds is that wolves whose territories largely
overlap viable livestock operations eventually prey on livestock. Those
claiming success for the Yellowstone and Idaho wolf reintroductions
conveniently ignore this fact.
We only get to claim "success" by lumping together the many wolf
packs in Yellowstone and Central Idaho that do not overlap livestock at all
with those packs on the fringes that almost invariably suffer control actions.
These activities suggest that under the present assumptions and scenarios
wolves will never achieve full recovery in the West. They will be ghettoized to
a few national parks and wilderness areas that are large enough to sustain some
populations. While wolves will not be extinct, their evolutionary pressures on
herbivores will be. We need to restore the wolf not only to a few token
wilderness areas and national parks, but west-wide so we can restore the
effects of wolf predation. This will never occur as long as livestock dominate
the landscape.
Furthermore, the present course of trying to modify wolves so that they can
"live with livestock" advocated by many wolf advocacy groups will
ultimately lead to the demise of wild wolves. I fear for wolves and other
large predators. Advocating things like "training wolves" to avoid
livestock with shock collars, using collars with sedatives to stop wolves from
wandering from predetermined "safe" areas, and so forth poses serious
philosophical questions about just what kind of wolves do we want. Some
are even advocating sterilization of wolves and coyotes to reduce predation
problems through population control with no attempt to understand how this may
affect many other things like the control of smaller rodents and meta predators
by the presence of theses larger predators.
Such a Brave New World of wildlife behavior modification represents a
fundamentally flawed view of wildlife. It seeks to take the wild out of
wildlife. I suspect that in the near future we may hear support from such
groups to genetically modify wolves so they become vegetarian. That would
greatly reduce predation problems-although I suspect even this would not be enough
to satisfy livestock interest who would still demand some control of the
vegetarian wolves who were competing with livestock for forage-just as they now
demand control of prairie dogs, ground squirrels, elk, and other herbivores.
Ultimately if wolf supporters are serious about restoring wolves to the West or
anyplace else, they have to come to grips with the notion that livestock
operations place a serious obstacle to full species restoration and recovery.
The two are essentially incompatible. I would argue that at least on the public
lands of the West we should at least consider the full removal of livestock. If
wolves can't roam freely on the public lands, then where? Elsewhere, I
believe wolf supporters should be demanding that ranchers modify and change
their animal husbandry practices to reduce predator opportunity rather than
demanding that wolves modify their behavior or use of the landscape. This will
obviously cost producers more money-but right now consumers are not paying the
full cost of a hamburger. They are getting a free ride at the expense of our
wildlife that suffers from the nearly wholesale usurpation of the majority of
the nation's land base that is devoted to livestock production.
George Wuerthner
Box 3156
Eugene, Oregon 97403
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~6~
Where Have They Gone?
Where have all the animals gone?
What have we done?
Where did they go?
Oh, no.
The caribou's are gone,
In the middle of Dawn.
Did they disappear?
Oh, so much I fear!
Did the great ducks fly away or run?
Was it the human gun?
Such beautiful birds,
On the blessed planet that's third.
Where have all the animals gone?
What have we done?
Where did they go?
Oh, no.
Copyright 2000 by Zeba Uddin
All Rights Reserved
May be used in unchanged form by avowed Animal Rightists if
accompanied by this copyright message.
Animal Rights Counterculture
http://www.animalsong.org
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~7~
Memorable Quote
"I have learned through bitter experience
the one supreme lesson: to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is
transmitted into energy, our anger controlled can be transmitted into a power
that can move the world."
~ Gandhi
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
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