AnimalRights.Net

The Essex Wildlife Trust owns almost 8,000 acres of land in 93 nature preserves in Great Britain. A few years ago, the Trust banned all hunting on land it owns, but got more than it bargained for in the process.

On the 600-acre Tollesbury Wick reserve, the past few years have scene the fox population increase dramatically with an attendant decline in the population of ground-nesting lapwings. Five years ago there were only 4-5 foxes on the reserve, whereas today there are about 20. While there were 38 pairs of ground-nesting lapwings five years ago, today there are only three. There have also been increases in fox attacks on other animals in the reserve.

The solution to deal with the problem? Hunting, of course. The Trust hired sharpshooters to cull the foxes, resulting in predictable outrage among animal rights activists in Great Britain.

Graham Game, the Trust’s development manager, told The Daily Telegraph,

We are getting the worst of both worldsWe are getting lots of flak for deciding to cull the foxes, but it looks as if not a single predator will have been shot. He said the decision to kill the foxes was only taken after much heart-searching and research. We have now reached the situation where these predators are making the future of endangered species unsustainable.

Of course the animal rights activists aren’t buying that argument at all. “When we tell them that we have seen foxes killing lambs and ground-nesting birds,” Game said, “they simply do not accept it.”

Do these activists think that foxes are herbivores?

Source:

Hunting ban trust faces protests over fox cull. David Sapsted, The Daily Telegraph, February 22, 2002.

In primate research Merck set out to find a vaccine that prevented HIV infection. It failed at that, but it may have produced the next best thing — a vaccine that suppresses HIV so thoroughly that those receiving it may not even be able to pass along the disease to other human beings.

Researchers were obviously disappointed when their vaccines failed to prevent HIV infection in monkeys. But after a bit of tinkering the vaccines did almost completely suppress the virus and the associated symptoms.

Very preliminary clinical testing of these vaccines have begun in human beings, and the results so far are promising. Two small groups of human volunteers were injected with different versions of the vaccines in Phase I tests designed largely to determine whether or not the vaccine is safe to move into larger trials in human beings.

The vaccine exposes the body to a protein that HIV relies upon to reproduce. In the two vaccines tested, one simply exposes the immune system to that protein, while the other exposes it to a cold virus that is wrapped around the protein. Even with the relatively low dose vaccines used to evaluate the safety of the approach, large percentages of both groups saw immune response systems much like those experienced by the monkeys who were exposed to the vaccine.

There was some concern about these sorts of vaccines earlier this year when one of eight monkeys injected with a similar virus finally succumbed to infections caused by SIV. In that a case a single mutation in the SIV virus carried by that particular monkey rendered the vaccine useless, although the seven other monkeys continue to have suppressed the disease and remain healthy.

In that case, though, the monkey that died received a relatively weak form of the vaccination, suggesting that vaccination should produce the strongest immune response possible to provide longer term suppression of the disease.

Given the clinical trial results of Merck’s vaccine, hopefully it will not be too long before the vaccine is tested on those already infected with HIV to see if it can provide the sort of disease suppression in humans that it does in monkeys. So far, the results are encouraging.

Source:

HIV vaccines show promise. The BBC, February 26, 2002.

Researchers at the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development recently reported on the successful trial of a vaccination for staphylococcus infection — a relatively common, and potentially deadly disease usually contracted in the hospital environment.

Staph infection fools the body into not realizing that it is under attack. The surface of the bacteria is covered with two sugar molecules which most human immune systems fail to recognize as a threat.

Experimenting in mice, the researchers took those two sugar molecules and added a third protein that they knew the immune system would recognize as a threat. Researchers proved that, at least in mice, that approach would work.

They then conducted trials of the vaccine on 1,900 patients receiving dialysis. Such patients typically have weakened immune systems and are especially vulnerable to staph infection. In the first 40 weeks of the study, those receiving the vaccination had 57 percent fewer staph infections compared to a control group that did not receive the vaccination.

Longer term the success rate was lower, but still represented a statistically significant increase in protection against staph infection compared to the control group.

The upshot of that is that the vaccination is likely to work even better with people who do not have compromised immune systems. As the BC quoted Robert Naso, who works with a company working on developing the vaccine,

Kidney disease patients on dialysis are among the least like to respond to a vaccine because their immune system are generally compromised. Based upon previous clinical studies in normal, healthy volunteers, we believe that other patient populations at risk for rStaph infections will respond to the vaccine with even higher levels of antibodies than was achievable in kidney disease patients.

An excellent example of the sort of discoveries and advances that animal research makes possible.

Source:

Promising results for ’superbug’ vaccine. The BC, February 14, 2002.

Research funded by Great Britain’s Arthritis Research Campaign recently reported that Omega-3 fatty acids — the main component of cod liver oil — appeared to be able to reduce both pain and damage in inflamed joints.

In the study, researchers injected subjects with a chemical designed to cause inflammation and then took cartilage samples four days later. The researchers reported that in the group treated with Omega-3, enzymes that would normally cause pain and damage to the cartilage had been “turned off” compared to the enzymes in the control group that were fully active.

Fergus Logan, who heads up the Arthritis Research Campaign, told the BC that, “We’re delighted that something as simple and non-controversial as cod liver oil has the potential to bring relief and restore the quality of life to so many people who suffer from osteoarthritis.”

Noncontroversial? At least until People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals gets wind of this.

Source:

Cod liver oil benefits confirmed. The BC, February 14, 2002.

Researchers at Texas A & M were in the news this week when word leaked that they managed to successfully clone a cat. A number of research efforts are underway to clone cats and dogs, but this was the first such success.

Much of the media coverage focused on the possibility of cloning pets. The Canadian Press quoted Texas A & M researcher Duane Kraemer as claiming that some people have already stored cells from their departed pets in the hope that cloning might one day bring back copies of said pets.

A more important possibility is the role that cloned cats may play in medical research. This possibility brought condemnation from the Humane Society of the United States‘ Wayne Pacelle who described the announcement as “unfortunate news” and told the Canadian Press that researchers should move away from using animals in medical research.

But research in cats has provided important information about a variety of issues related to human physiology, especially about vision. The way cats process vision is very similar to the processes in human beings. In fact, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel won the 1981 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for their research in cats and monkeys that completely revolutionized understanding of how vision is processed.

Pacelle and animal rights activists are free to maintain that advances in human knowledge thanks to animal research are “unfortunate,” but they will have to excuse the rest of us for finding this to be incredibly exciting news.

Source:

Texas researchers announce successful cloning of a cat; dogs are next. Malcolm Ritter, Canadian Press, February 15, 2002.

More than nine lives for this cat. Antonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2002.

On November 16, 2001 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals activists Dan Shannon and Jay Kelly hit a deer while traveling in an automobile owned by PETA. PETA’s legal counsel, Matthew Penzer, last week faxed a notice to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife declaring their intent to sue the state of New Jersey for contributing to the accident through their deer management practices.

In a press release, PETA outlined its legal strategy,

PETA argues that by placing the interests of hunters, who amount to barely more than 1 percent of New Jersey’s population, above the safety of the more than 8 million New Jersey residents and countless out-of-state travelers who use the roads, wildlife agencies are violating the state’s constitutional mandate to provide protection and security to its people. PETA also opposes the fear, the disruption of herd members’ relationships, and the bloodshed suffered by deer on grounds of cruelty to animals.

In a letter to Bob McDowell, director of New Jersey’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, Penzer wrote that,

. . . shortly before 1 o’clock in the morning on that date [Nov. 16, 2001], while driving a Honda Civic belonging to PETA (and while returning from a PETA campaigning tour) southbond on the New Jersey Turnpike, a deer darted out in front of the car and a collision resulted. . . . Damage to the car was severe, resulting in a repair bill that exceeded $6,000.00 and loss of use of the car for nearly two months. The total amount of damages is, as yet, unkown.

The best way to describe this is frivolous.

Source:

http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685″>PETA“>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA</a>”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685″>PETA“>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685″>PETA“>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685″>PETA“>PETA”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685″>PETA“>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685“>PETA Vehicle Collides with deer, PETA to sue state game agency. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, February 14, 2002.

The owner of a cow used as part of a fundraiser for Florida Southern College called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ claims that the cow was mistreated are “ridiculous.”

The animal was used in a game of Cow Bingo, where participants bought $10 tickets corresponding to parts of a field where the cow would heed the call of nature. PETA claimed that the cow was fed laxatives and gave birth shortly after the event. The cow’s owner, Mike Hiestand, says neither of those claims is true.

“The cow did not give birth,” Hiestand told the Lakeland Ledger. “Why would I take a chance on hurting a calf and feed a cow laxatives? Some of the kids asked me if I could use laxatives to make the game move along faster, but I refused.”

Hiestand also disputed claims by PETA’s Amy Rhodes that the cow was stressed by the event. “If she was stressed, she would have torn down the pen,” Hiestand said. “She doesn’t know the difference — whether you take her to a pasture or the Lakeland Square Mall.”

Hiestand challenged PETA up or shut up. “I’d like them to prove there was any mistreatment of the cow,” Hiestand told the Lakeland Ledger. “My family spends more money on that cow than some people spend on their kids.”

Whatever you do, Mr. Heistand, just do not let PETA “rescue” your cow. Animals given that treatment by PETA do not tend to live long enough to be stressed out.

Source:

Owner: Cow was treated fine. Erik Ortiz, The Lakeland Ledger, February 17, 2002.

On Feb. 12 I wrote about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals complaining about a game of cow bingo organized as a fundraiser by students at Florida Southern College. A large field was marked off into a grid, and prizes awarded based on where the cow heeded the call of nature. PETA claimed that the cow was fed laxatives, a claim with Florida Southern College denied. Now, PETA is back for round 2 with FSC.

PETA’s Amy Rhodes complains that, “All they [FSC] did was deny the cow was fed laxatives. And they quoted [to the effect that the game was not cruel] someone who wasn’t even there .”

Hmmm. PETA complains that the cow was fed laxatives and when FSC denies that, PETA whines, “is that all you’ve got.” Rhodes should either put up or shut up by providing some sort of evidence that FSC is wrong on this point.

As to whether or not having a crowd watch a cow wander around a field is cruel or not, Rhodes maintains that it is, claiming her initial complaints were misunderstood. According to Rhodes,

I was not talking about the cow being embarrassed. That’s just silly, but I would assume that she was stressed in that situation. … I am told there were a hundred people laughing at (the cow), some children. You don’t teach children to ridicule animals or degrade them because they may do the same to people. It’s a dangerous message to send to children.

Perhaps she has a point — it might be better to laugh at and ridicule Rhodes for offering up such a ludicrous argument. It’s interesting, though, that Rhodes criticizes FSC for asking a local SPCA official who wasn’t at the event about whether or not it was cruel, but then herself launches into an argument prefaced by “I would assume that she was stressed.” What a convenient sort of hypocrisy that is.

I would assume in that situation that Rhodes doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Source:

PETA still critical of college’s use of a cow. Erik Ortiz, The Lakeland Ledger (Florida), February 14, 2002.

Yesterday Scotland’s Parliament voted 67 to 37 to ban the hunting of foxes with dogs, but the bizarre finale to a process that began in 2000 left numerous questions as to whether or not the law would survive legal appeals and whether or not it is enforceable as written.

In a flurry of legislative maneuvering, the Scottish Parliament considered no less than 107 amendments to the bill, adopting some and rejecting others in what the Glasgow Herald described as a last minute legislative scramble. The various amendments — and lack of a specific set of amendments — will likely leave the ban in legal limbo for several years.

The Protection of Wild Mammals Act provides for up to six months in jail and a 5,000 pound fine for anyone who takes part in a fox-hunt using dogs, engages in hare coursing, or participates in fox-baiting, Subcommittee on FOrests and Forests Health

Supporters of fox hunting are expected to mount a number of legal challenges to the bill, including one over the compensation that is to be given to people whose businesses and jobs will be lost due to the ban. Three amendments designed to offer compensation to such people were offered and all three were rejected. This is in contrast to Scotland’s ban on fur farms where it included a compensation package to fur farmers put out of work, even though there were no operating fur farms in Scotland.

The lack of any compensation opens the possibility that the ban violates the European Convention on Human Rights which forbids the government taking of property without compensation.

About 3,000 people are employed in jobs relating to mounted hunts in Scotland.

The bigger problem, though, is that the law has so many exceptions and loopholes that it is questionable whether or not it can be meaningfully enforced. There are exemptions for pest control, the bill requires prosecutors to prove an “intent to kill” a fox beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are plenty of similar legal ambiguities. As one British newspaper put it, the entire bill is one big gift to lawyers.

Which did not stop supporters of the ban from proclaiming this one of the most important acts in human history. Consider anti-hunting activist Graham Isdale’s comments to The Guardian about the ban,

This is one of those defining moments in the history of UK parliaments. It is a momentous occasion because Scotland is taking a lead in the UK, in the rest of Europe, and possibly in the rest of the world.

There is no denying, however, that the passage of the ban will put new pressure on Tony Blair and the Labor Party to follow-through on Blair’s 1999 promise to ban fox hunting posthaste. Labor, however, keeps finding excuses not to reintroduce a ban on hunting and is apparently wary of further alienating rural voters.

Sources:

Edinburgh ban on blood sport raises pressure on Blair. Nigel Morris, The Independent (London), February 14, 2002.

Scotland bans fox-hunting. Kirsty Scott, The Guardian (London), February 14, 2002

Only the lawyers will benefit from this sorry mess. Alan Cochrane, The Daily Telegraph (London), February 13, 2002.

Sportsmen outfoxed as hunting ban is passed. Los Angeles Times, February 14, 2002.

Final scramble kills compensation; Struggle to deal with 107 amendments produces a shock. Frances Horsburgh, The Herald (Glasgow), February 14, 2002.

The ban on fox-hunting; Executive must intervene with compensation. The Herald (Glasgow), February 14, 2002.

Yesterday the U.S. Senate approved an amendment to a major farm bill that would exempt rats, mice and birds from the Animal Welfare Act. The amendment was introduced by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) and would overturn a successful legal victory by the Humane Society of the United States to have those animals included under the Animal Welfare Act.

Although the Animal Welfare Act did not specifically exempt rats, mice and birds, the U.S. Department of Agriculture never applied the law to those animals which together constitute 95 percent of animals used for medical research.

HSUS and other animal rights groups sued the USDA in 1990 arguing that it had no legal basis for exempting rats, mice and birds. After the USDA lost a court ruling on that matter, it reached an agreement with HSUS in which the USDA promised to draft regulations covering the formerly exempted species. Under the proposed rule changes, researchers would have to more thoroughly justify research involving such animals and demonstrate that they are not repeating previous research.

This change has been opposed by the medical research community on the grounds that it will create an expensive nightmare of forms that will not enhance the welfare of research animals but will increase the costs and hence slow the pace of medical research with animals.

Helms’ amendment specifically exempts rodents and birds used in medical research from USDA oversight.

HSUS vice president Michael Stephens accused Helms of not caring enough about research animals. He told the Associated Press,

Just because Senator Helms doesn’t care about birds, mice and rats doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have legal protections. This is an issue that concerns millions of animals used in research. No one doubts that they can feel pain.

Helms’ amendment passed on a voice vote in the Senate without debate, and the farm bill itself passed the Senate. Now a House-Senate conference committee will meet to reconcile the different farm bills passed by each chamber of Congress. If the amendment remains in the final version of the bill that emerges from that conference committee, it will become law as long as George W. Bush decides not to veto the farm bill (which would be highly unlikely).

Source:

Helms denies protections for rodents in lab experiments. The Associated Press, February 14, 2002.