AnimalRights.Net

After People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent protestor Rachelle Thorne dressed as the devil (how apropos) to dance on the grave of Gunther Gebel-Williams, PETA spokeswoman Brandi Valladolid told local news media that PETA has a policy of not bailing out such protestors when they are arrested.

How odd, then, that Florida media reported today that Rachelle Thorne was released from jail on July 20 after a PETA staff member posted her $1,000 bail.

Animal rights activists were the main suspects in the release of over 1,000 mink from a fur farm in western Finland in the early morning hours of Monday, July 22.

Somebody broke into the farm between midnight and 4:30 a.m. and managed to release a third of the 3,000 mink.

Finland is a major source of mink pelts, producing 2 million in 2001, and there have been a number of such animal releases over the past several years.

Source:

Activists work: more than 1,000 minks released on fur farm in western Finland. Canadian Press, July 22, 2002.

The Scientist recently published a long look at the development of a vaccine for staph infection — a vaccine that as recently as the 1960s was considered impossible to develop by most reputable authorities.

Without going into too much detail about the chemistry of it all, for a variety of reasons researchers in the 1960s concluded that the outer layer of the staph bacteria lacked polysaccharides.

In fact, the staph bacteria do contain polysaccharides. Researcher Walter Karakawa demonstrated this and then went on to develop a vaccine for staph that takes advantage of this. The vaccine has proven relatively successful in initial human tests on people with compromised immune systems, and should prove to be a boon in the routine protection of surgical patients against staph infection (patients are currently given antibiotics, but the staph bacteria has increasingly developed resistances to many antibiotics).

From that discovery Ali Fattom of Nabi Biopharmaceuticals worked to develop a vaccine for staph, which again many researchers said was impossible even if staph did contain polysaccharides. The major factor in Fattom’s proving that a vaccine would work was his development of an animal model of staph in mice. When Fattom looked back at previous efforts to locate polysaccharides he found that researchers had never created an animal model for the disease. According to The Scientist,

This brush with termination [when his vaccine project was almost cancelled] marked a turning point, for it convinced Fattom that he needed to demonstrate with an animal model that antibodies against polysaccharides protected against infection. This had not been done earlier because the NIH and Univax [who had both done polysaccharide vaccine development] researchers did not develop an animal model. [NIH vaccinologist John] Robbins’ goal had been to get the vaccine into the clinic quickly and safety, not to research the molecular basis of virulence. So animal model development had been deferred.

. . .

In 1996 Fattom finally developed a mouse model in which a reasonable innoculum caused infection. With this model he was the first to demonstrate that conjugate vaccines protected against lethal injections of Staphylococcus aureus. Knowing he would need corroboration, he then invited Jean C. Lee of Harvard to test his vaccines in her endocarditis model with rats. A year later the results were just as predicted — the vaccines protected Lee’s rats. Now, at last, skeptics started to come around. Maybe the vaccine would work.

And work it apparently does. A clinical trial of the vaccine in dialysis patients found the vaccine cut the rate of staph infections by 57 percent. The vaccine should perform even better in routine pre-surgical administration since the patients in that clinical trial had characteristics such as diabetes and high uric acid levels that inhibit production of white blood cells.

The vaccine is still undergoing further clinical trials, but barring any unforseen events should reach market within a few years. Not bad for a few people armed just with a hypothesis and some mice.

Source:

Impossible vaccine tames Staphylococcus aureus. Tom Hollon, The Scientist, 16[14]:24, July 8, 2002.

Back in January of this year, Robert Kennedy Jr. made headlines for saying that the pork industry was a bigger threat to the United States than terrorists operating out of Afghanistan (see this story). Kennedy apparently not only likes to say absurd things but also files frivolous lawsuits and in early July 2002 had one such case thrown out by a Florida judge.

More than 30 groups, including Kennedy’s Water Keeper Alliance, filed a class action lawsuit against Smithfield Foods Inc. The lawsuit alleged that Smithfield Foods was deliberately polluting rivers and was in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Kennedy has filed several lawsuits against Smithfield Foods in several jurisdictions, essentially trying to use tort law to replace state and federal regulations of wetlands.

Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich granted Smithfield’s motions to dismiss the Florida case and, citing “frivolous motions” filed by plaintiffs attorneys, ordered the plaintiffs to pay Smithfield’s legal costs. Kovachevich had written in an earlier opinion on the case that, “No reasonable attorney . . . could reasonably believe that [the lawsuit] had any reasonable chance of success.”

In March 2001, North Carolina Judge Donald W. Stephens threw out two other lawsuits filed there by Water Keeper Alliance and others groups against Smithfield.

Source:

Lawsuit dismissed against Smithfield. Associated Press, July 2, 2002.

GoMemphis.Com pet columnist Cindy Wolff offers an odd defense for Christina Walker, 24, who was recently arrested and charged with filing a false police report.

Walker told police that her car was stolen with her 5-year-old daughter inside. According to Wolff, police mobilized 45 law enforcement agents in a frantic search to find Samantha — until Walker’s father informed them that Samantha was, in fact, a cocker spaniel. The dog was later found near the area where Walker’s car was abandoned. It had been hit and killed by a car.

Walker was arrested and booked on a felony charge of filing a false police report. And Wolff tries to spin the whole bizarre tale into a morality play about how human beings don’t yet recognize the importance of their pets,

The situation of children in danger awakens a primal panic in all human beings desperate to save the innocent ones.

. . .

After her lie unraveled, many animal lovers responded with empathy because they know how far society has to go in recognizing the importance of companion animals in our lives. While pets are considered a part of the family, society still regards them as unimportant as the spare tire that gets stolen with the car.

Co-workers don’t make fun of you if you talk about how much you love your children. But tell them how crazy you are about your pet, and some of them roll their eyes. Tell them you would risk your life to save your pet’s, and they shake their heads.

There’s no comparison, they argue. A child, a human being – an offspring of man – has far more value and importance in the universe than that of some dog or cat, they say.

To give an animal value is to belittle our own existence. If we give them worth anywhere close to our own, then we not only elevate an animal to our exalted status, we lower ourselves, they believe.

And Wolff rants on like that for more than 1,100 words.

Hey, we all love animals, but when “they” argue that “there’s no comparison” between a child and an animal and that a human child “has far more value and importance in the universe than that of some dog or cat,” well, “they” are right.

Wolff argues that Walker should not have to go to jail because she’s already been punished enough with the death of her dog. I completely disagree. I hope they throw the book at Walker for sending police on such a stupid wild goose chase.

Source:

At heart of hoax may be society’s failure to value love for a pet. Cindy Wolff, GoMemphis.Com, July 23, 2002.

After the 9/11 terrorist attack, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals told reporters that it was altering its tactics because the “in-your-face” style of protests wouldn’t be as effective. And, amazingly, not a small number of newspapers bought that nonsense and ran stories about PETA’s new profile. And this weekend, PETA’s less offensive approach including sending a woman to literally dance on the grave of one of PETA’s enemies, the late circus trainer Gunther Gebel-Williams.

Gebel-Williams died a year ago and to mark the one year anniversary of his death, PETA sent Rachelle Thorne, 20, to his grave site dressed in a devil costume. Thorne planned to dance on the circus pioneer’s grave. (Thorne also gave her name as Jessica L. Smith to police).

Thorne was accompanied by PETA spokeswoman Brandi Valladolid who told reporters that Gebel-Williams was “a bully who made a fast buck on the bloodied backs of animals.”

Gebel-Williams’ families got wind of the planned protest and alerted police. They took Thorne into custody while Valladolid split before the arrest took place.

Thorne remained in jail overnight and Valladolid told The Florida Herald Tribune that it was the policy of PETA not to bail out its protesters when arrested. That, of course, is a lie, since PETA has on several occasions bailed out arrested protesters, including an incident a few years ago when it bailed out individuals accused of arson at a PETA protests.

Ringling Bros. issued a press release saying,

It’s shameful that our critics feel that they should desecrate the resting place of a man beloved by millions who ushered in the era of respect for all animals. According to a press release issued yesterday, PETA sent a protester dressed as a devil to dance on the rave of animal trainer Gunther Gebel-Williams, who passed away one year ago today.

While police managed to stop Thorne/Smith from dancing on Gebel-Williams grave, such outrageous protests do help to drive yet another nail in the coffin of the animal rights movement. For a brief second, PETA seemed to recognize this after the 9/11 attack but has apparently concluded that even horrible publicity like this is better than no publicity at all. Lets hope they keep up that policy.

Sources:

Protest at Gebel-Williams grave foiled. Sun and Weekly Herald (Florida), July 21, 2002.

Devil picks a hot day for grave dancing. Bill Hutchinson, Herald Tribune (Florida), July 20, 2002.

Ringling Bros. Responds to Extremists’ Latest Antics. Ringling Bros., Press Release, July 19, 2002.

Scripps Howard ran a story last week about an ongoing conflict between People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and three environmental groups that support plans by the Environmental Protection Agency to test tens of thousands of manmade chemicals for safety purposes.

PETA has a web site, www.greenmeanies.com, and has taken out newspaper ads attacking the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund and Environmental Defense for supporting the planned testing which will involve some animal tests.

PETA’s Jessica Sadler told Scripps Howard,

We’ve tried to discuss what we think are critical issues with these environmental groups and have had obstacles erected at every turn in our efforts to reduce the amount of animal suffering that these programs stand for. The fact is that EPA kills more animals in chemical toxicity tests than any other federal agency and they still have not banned a single toxic industrial chemical in more than a decade.

Both the EPA and the environmental groups point out that, contrary to PETA’s propaganda, there simply are not animal alternatives for all of the chemical toxicity tests involved. The Natural Resources Defense Council also disputes a claim that PETA and other animal rights activists have made that the EPA’s endocrine disruptor testing program will require killing 600,000 to 1.2 million animals. NRDC’s Gina Solomon told Scripps Howard,

I think those numbers are ridiculous. Most chemicals will be prescreened out and won’t even be tested in animals. Only a relatively small number of chemicals will test positive. Those will be ones that will require a large number of animal tests.

PETA lying about animal tests? Say it isn’t so!

Animal activists face green groups. Joan Lowry, Scripps Howard, July 18, 2002.

Alex Hershaft had a problem — the discussion board set up on VegSource.Com to serve as a place for activists to talk about their memories of Animal Rights 2002 was being dominated by a debate by remarks made by Howard Lyman and the appropriateness of campaigns by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals which use sex to sell the animal rights message.

So Hershaft did what most people in groups try to do when faced with internal dissent — try to focus that anger back at a common foe. So on Monday, July 15, Hershaft posted the text of an op-ed by David Martosko, who is director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom. But that article and Hershaft’s ensuing comments raised more problems and questions than they answered.

That was an odd choice because Martosko’s main point was that animal rights violence and terrorism is a mainstream part of the movement, and there was no better example of the truth of this than that advocates of violence were given prominent platforms at AR 2002. Martosko wrote, for example,

One such miscreant is actually a fugitive from justice. Paul Watson, who runs the misleadingly-named Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, made over a half-dozen speeches at AR2002, despite his continued defiance of a warrant for his arrest in Costa Rica. Watson, whose own ship has a bow filled with cement (for ramming and sinking other boats), openly advocated the baseball-bat approach to conflict resolution, telling the audience: “The fact is that we live in an extremely violent culture, and we all justify violence if itÂ’s for what we believe in.” In another session, ominously titled “Direct Tactics,” Watson advised the assembled activists that “ThereÂ’s nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win.”

Other memorable moments from AR2002 included former Animal Liberation Front (ALF) “spokesperson” Kevin Jonas embracing the T-word (“TodayÂ’s terrorist is tomorrowÂ’s freedom fighter”) and encouraging more activists to cross the line into lawbreaking: “Why should any one of us feel that ‘it shouldn’t be me taking that brick and chucking it through that window?Â’” he implored. “Why shouldnÂ’t I be going to that fur farm down the road and opening up those cages? ItÂ’s not hard; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. You don’t need a 4-year degree to call in a bomb hoax.” Jonas (sometimes spelled “Kjonaas”) was profiled in yesterdayÂ’s Philadelphia Inquirer, defending his group and its violent actions. “I don’t feel any sympathy for people in England or America who have had their cars tipped or torched,” he offered, “because those cars were paid for out of blood money.”

To Hershaft, apparently, Martosko’s highlighting of the advocates of violence at AR2002 is representative of the real adversaries the animal rights movement faces.

This post by Hershaft brought a quick response by animal rights activist Dean Smith who was also one of the speakers at AR 2002. In a post titled, “Our “adversary” has a point”, Smith wrote,

Like it or not, the comments at AR2002 encouraging the use of violence as a means for achieving animal liberation could very well have been the impetus for the actions referenced in this article. The main point of the panel was to encourage this type of action, violent and otherwise. Why do we run away when violent acts occur and act as if they weren’t encouraged by movement leaders (tacitly and otherwise).

. . .

Both Dan Murphy in his recent column and the columnist referenced here are right to criticize our movement for violent actions. I personally wish that more leaders in this movement would have the fortitude to do so as well.

A couple others chimed in with agreement, and one, identified only as “Ali M”, put the question about terrorism and animal rights to Hershaft directly,

Alex, I’m confused about the message behind your post. What are you saying about animal rights activists who break the law? What are you saying about animal rights terrorists? There is a very clear distinction between breaking the law & being a terrorist. I hope you are not suggesting otherwise. Who are you saying is “our real adversaries?” Please respond.

Hershaft replied with a curt, chilling message,

From: AlexH. (pool-138-88-95-208.res.east.verizon.net)

Subject: Our real adversaries are consumerfreedom.com …

Date: July 15, 2002 at 3:26 pm PST

In Reply to: Re: Lest we forget our real adversaries posted by Ali M on July 15, 2002 at 2:26 pm:

… and their fellow shills for the meat, dairy, research, and animal oppressing industries. Since the people attacked in the editorial were my plenary speakers, I didn’t realize my post required clarification.

For Hershaft, then, the real adversaries of the animal rights movement are those outside of it who dare criticize activists like Paul Watson and Kevin Jonas for their endorsement of violence. To Hershaft, people like Jonas are not dangerous advocates of violence but rather “my plenary speakers.”

In Hershaft’s vision of the animal rights movement, feminists who go up on stage to read a statement in protest of an award given to a beauty pageant winner are divisive and may be banned from future animal rights conferences. Those who openly advocate violence, however, are not only welcome, but the real adversaries to the movement are those, like Martosko, who simply report about how the animal rights movement tolerates and encourages violent extremism.

This is the same Hershaft who earlier this year complained that people ignored instructions at Animal Rights 2001 and brought their dogs, complaining that the Hilton was angry about this and he needed to keep the event at the Hilton because “we are trying to project a middle class image.” It’s hard to tell where he thinks bomb hoaxes, property discussion and arson fit into a “middle class image.”

Sources:

Animal-rights fanatics: Doctor Dolittle gone bad. David Martosko, Seattle Times, July 15, 2002.

Lest we forget our real adversaries. Alex Hershaft, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Our “adversary” has a point. Dean Smith, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Yes. “Sydney”, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Re: Lest we forget our real adversaries. “Ali M.”, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Our real adversaries are consumerfreedom.com …. Alex Hershaft, VegSource.Com, July 15, 2002.

Occasionally some animal rights group or another will make some wild claim about the popularity of vegetarianism (witness PETA’s recent clever manipulation of data from a poll it commissioned on America’s eating habits). As part of a recent cover story on vegetarianism, Time Magazine commissioned a poll of 10,000 people who were asked about what they eat. The results show that if vegetarianism/veganism is the heart of the animal rights movement (as is often claimed), then the movement is in deep trouble.

Of no surprise is that almost nobody is a vegan. In the Time poll only 1 out of every 500 persons interviewed claimed to be a vegan.

A much larger total of 3.8 percent of people interviewed did claim to be vegetarians, but they are an odd sort of vegetarian. In fact, 60 percent of the self-identified vegetarians also said they had eaten meat, poultry or seafood in the last 24 hours! As Time put it,

Perhaps those surveyed thought a vegetarian is someone who, from time to time, eats vegetables as a side dish — say, alongside a prime rib. If more than one-third of people in a large sample don’t know the broadest definition of vegetarian, one wonders how they can be trusted with something much more difficult: the full-time care and picky-picky feeding of their bodies, whatever their dietary preferences.

Once those folks are left out, only 1.6 percent of respondents were vegetarians by a sensible definition of that term and almost all of them are going to anger Karen Davis and company for exploiting chickens.

So in the 22 years since the founding of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the animal rights movement has managed to convince a whopping 1.6 percent of Americans to give up all animal products except eggs. Even among the vegetarians, only 27 percent said they became a vegetarian because of animal rights, love of animals or religious reasons.

Yeah, that’s a movement that’s really lit a fire under the American psyche (which, of course, is why it increasingly resorts to lighting fires at American businesses).

Source:

Should We All Be Vegetarians? Richard Corliss, Time, July 7, 2002.

Veggie statistics. Alex Hershaft, e-mail communication, July 14, 2002.

The Financial Times reported this weekend that Volkert van der Graaf, the animal rights activist and alleged assassin of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, has gone on a hunger strike to protest is prison conditions.

According to his lawyer, van der Graaf is being held in solitary confinement and monitored via video camera in a cell that is lighted 24 hours a day.

Dutch prison authorities say they have taken such measures because they are afraid van der Graaf will try to commit suicide.

Source:

Fortuyn suspect on hunger strike. Ian Bickerton, July 14, 2002.