AnimalRights.Net

The Fund for Animals issued a press release in February about its ongoing campaign against Neiman Marcus. On February 22 it was to hold a protest at a San Francisco Neiman Marcus. The Fund’s Pierre Grzybowski said in the press release,

We are holding this vigil to draw attention to the millions of animals who suffer each year for the unnecessary fur trade. There are plenty of warm and elegant alternatives that don’t involve animal cruelty. Causing animals to suffer will never be back in fashion.

But it was this paragraph at the end of the release that caught my attention,

Last fall, a Decision Research poll of high-income shoppers, conducted in four metropolitan areas where Neiman Marcus has stores, revealed that a majority of consumers consider selling fur to be socially irresponsible.

This poll was actually conducted by Decision Research in September 2001 rather than last Fall as The Fund claimed. But more importantly, there is very little on The Fund’s web site about exactly what this poll asked individuals.

The Fund reported at the time that the poll found 54 percent of the 400 high-income shoppers interviewed for the poll said that stores selling fur were socially irresponsible. It also claimed that consumers overwhelmingly favored shopping at stores that did not carry fur.

But the actual poll questions and breakdown of answers is not available anywhere at The Fund’s web site nor at Decision Research’s web site.

The suspicion that this was likely a push poll is reinforced by Decision Research’s blatant statement on its web site that it is not simply an objective polling organization, but considers itself to be actively trying to improve animal welfare. According to Decision Research,

Since the early 1990’s Decision Research has been an active participant in efforts to use the ballot box to further animal welfare. Working closely with the Humane Society of the United States and other animal welfare organizations, Decision Research has conducted focus groups and surveys on issues ranging from limits on factory farming to bans on hunting mountain lions to eliminating inhumane methods of trapping and hunting, and banning cockfighting outright. Our research has been critical to the success of a dozen ballot measures by helping determine the ballot language, and best arguments to use during the campaign.

Fine, but don’t expect anyone to consider your polls about animal issue to be objective.

Sources:

Fund for Animals holds massive candlelight vigil to protest sale of fur at “Neiman Carcass”. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, February 20, 2003.

Public Policy Clients — Animal Welfare. Decision Research web page, Accessed: March 14, 2003.

Poll Reveals Upscale Shoppers Strongly Prefer Fur-Free Department Stores. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, October 24, 2001.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty claims that it has received an extensive list of Huntingdon Life Sciences customers and contracts from a sympathizers within the company.

Among other things, SHAC plans to use the list to target Japanese companies who are customers of HLS. The Financial Times reports that some of Japan’s large chemical companies including Sumitomo, Daiichi, Mitsui, Eisai, and Fujisawa are on SHAC’s list of customers and are likely to be targets of SHAC’s variety of animal rights extremism.

Convicted SHAC criminal Greg Avery told The Financial Times,

Our supporters in Japan are very keen but very inexperienced. We will send 10 or 15 people from the UK and five to 10 from Europe to supplement them.

According to the Financial Times, SHAC claims to have raised 20,000 pounds to support its Japanese campaign.

Meanwhile, SHAC is also extending its campaign to target Covance as well.

Source:

Animal activists expand campaign against HLS. David Firn and Patrick Jenkins, The Financial Times, March 14, 2003.

The BBC recently reported on a successful effort in mice to treat Huntington’s with gene therapy. Huntington’s is a genetic disease that is incurable and results in the degeneration of the brain and eventual death among sufferers.

Researchers at the University of Iowa used gene therapy to shut off the affected gene entirely in mice. Shutting off the gene entirely in human beings is not an option, but there is another possibility. Human beings have two copies of this gene, and in most Huntington’s sufferers only one of the genes is defective. If researchers could turn off the defective gene, they could at least slow the progress of the disease.

So far, though, such gene therapy has shown limited success in slowing a similar disease human cells in laboratory conditions, but is still a long way from testing a gene therapy cure in human beings.

Source:

Gene therapy hope for Huntington’s. The BBC, March 13, 2003.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent out a letter in early February seeking to find activists willing to participate in a walk to protest the March of Dimes WalkAmerica. According to its press release,

We need you to help us convince the March of Dimes to stop funding cruel, worthless experiments on animals. . .

. . .

The March of Dimes relies on donations from individuals who are unaware that their contributions are being used to torture animals instead of helping babies. Their single largest fundraiser is WalkAmerica, walk-a-thons held in major U.S. city throughout April and May.

Your presence at the WalkAmerica event in your area is vital to educating the March of Dimes supporters about the charity’s choices when it comes to what to fund. It is critical that caring activists encourage WalkAmerica participants to designate their contributions to be used for only the best tests, i.e. for non-animal projects, like a Birth Defects Registry that could save countless babies’ lives.

I hate to break it to PETA, but a birth defects registry is not a “test.” All states currently have birth defect registries, though some of them are substandard and the March of Dimes has done excellent legislative work on improving the quality of the data they produce.

The PETA letter, by the way, was posted to AR-NEWS by Friends of Animals activist Phyllis Bedford who is organizing a protest March for Centennial Park. Bedford is recruiting for people because, “Some of us can’t go to Centennial Park due to a past CD.”

Source:

Letter. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, February 2003.

Former Animal Liberation Front spokesman Craig Rosebraugh seems to have turned his support of violence to a new cause — stopping the impending war against Iraq. Not surprisingly, Rosebraugh has little use for the activists holding peaceful demonstrations, an instead calls for large scale riots and other acts of violence designed to force the United States to put police and even military units in American cities.

In a post on Philadelphia Independent Media Center, Rosebraugh offers the following seven steps that those opposed to the war should take,

1) Attack the financial centers of the country. Using covert or black block techniques, depending on the situation, physically shut down financial centers which regulate and assist the functioning of U.S. economy. This can be done in a variety of ways from massive property destruction, to online sabotage, to physical occupation of buildings. However the latter I would shy away from, especially the open civil disobedience type of activities which purposely involve arrests. This movement needs all the assistance it can get and absolutely NO good will come from going to jail. Allowing yourself to be purposely arrested demonstrates that an individual has at least some faith in the U.S. legal system. This is completely foolish. One primary objective is to engage in serious unrest and disruption and NOT to get caught. Not getting caught means you are able to continue the struggle the next day.

2) Large scale urban rioting. With massive unrest and even state of emergencies declared in major cities across the country, the U.S. government will be forced to send U.S. troops into the domestic arena thereby taking resources and political focus away from the war. Unstable conditions in much of the country also serve as a political embarrassment for the Administration and could assist in forcing them to stop the war to deal with domestic concerns. Rioting should be focused on governmental agencies and corporations -? especially those that are profiting from the war or destruction of life.

3) Attack the media centers of the country. It is the corporate media who has and continues to influence and control the minds of the mass body of people in the United States. These new media outlets cannot be utilized by the movement as they are owned by the very corporations one should be opposing. Using any means necessary, shut down the national networks of NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. Not just occupations but actually engage in strategies and tactics which knock the networks off the air.

4) Spread the battle to the individuals responsible for the war and destruction of life -? the very heads of government and U.S. corporations. No longer should these people be able to hide behind their occupations, living their lives in peace while they simultaneously slaughter countless people. Hit them in their personal lives, visit their homes, and make them feel personally responsible for committing massive atrocities.

5) Make it known publicly that this movement DOES NOT support U.S. troops as long as they are serving an unjust and horrifying political regime. Create an atmosphere lacking of support to assist U.S. troops at home and abroad in losing their morale and will to fight. If you are supporting the troops you are supporting this war and the very U.S. government that is the primary terrorist regime in the international arena.

6) Actively target U.S. military establishments within the United States. Again, following the above stated goal of NOT getting caught, use any means necessary to slow down the functioning of the murdering body.

7) When engaging in the above six activities, strike hard and fast and retreat in anonymity. Select another location, strike again hard and fast and quickly retreat in anonymity. Engage only in actions where you will be victorious. Do not be concerned with alienating the mainstream sectors of the movement -? that mainstream has NEVER stopped a U.S. military activity or war. Do not get caught. DO NOT GET CAUGHT. Do not get sent to jail. Stay alert, keep active, and keep fighting. Remember, an action is only good (especially at this juncture in U.S. society) if it will serve to severely disrupt the political system of the country, its economy, and the corporate interests that drive this society.

Source:

Craig Rosebraugh on the Anti-War Struggle. Craig Rosebraugh, March 17, 2003.

The Associated Press reports that the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for attacks on two factories in Norway that produce feed for animals on fur farms.

A police official told the Associated Press,

We received an e-mail earlier claiming to be from the Animal Liberation Front taking responsibility for the two incidents. The investigation showed that the factories had been exposed to sabotage. This was according to the e-mail.

Activists firebombed a garage and attempted to set fire to trucks, though the Associated Press account was unclear on just how much damage the activists inflicted. Bjorn Dag Gundersen, a spokesman for the Norwegian Fur Breeder Association, did tell the Associated Press that any damages to the factory would be covered by insurance.

Source:

In Norway, police cite animal activists in attack on feed producers. Associated Press, March 10, 2003.

Scottish animal rights activist Yvonne Taylor made quite a splash in Paris recently with her efforts to disrupt fashion shows. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals member disrupted a Gaultier fashion show by jumping on the runway holding a banner reading “Fur Kills” while she chanted “Fur is dead” (thankfully the crowd was spared the sight of her naked body, unlike the poor citizens in Beijing who were subjected to that display).

In an interview with Scottish newspaper The Herald, Taylor said she is afraid of being arrested and possibly spending time in prison, but is ready to go to jail if that’s what it takes,

Although I’m petrified, it’s nothing compared to what these animals go through. When a model is on the catwalk wearing fur, all I can see is an animal suffering. If I thought about consequences I’d never do anything. Prison is always a possibility, but I just can’t think about it.

Don’t worry, with a bit of luck Taylor will have plenty of time to think about it at some point.

Not that she’d be missing much. According to The Herald, Taylor is a professional protester who “has turned her back on a nine-to-five job and instead campaigns for animal rights” full time. In addition to stripping and chanting for PETA, she is a coordinator with the Scotland-based Advocates for Animals.

Taylor adds that she plans to do this for the rest of her life,

I will never stop. Even when I’m an old lady I will drop my clothes to keep fur off people’s backs.

Probably beats seeing Bruce Friedrich streaking for some nonsense, but not by much. But the important point here is that she is exactly right — she will have to be taking her clothes off when she’s 80 because the fur industry will still be around and going strong. At least Taylor understands the futility of her little stunts.

Source:

Fur protester ready to go to jail for the cause. Catherine Lyst, The Herald (Scotland), March 12, 2003.

Naked fur protesters freed. The BBC, October 24, 2002.

PETA Activists Confront Gaultier on the Catwalk. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, March 3, 2003.

In Defense of Animals sent to a newsletter in late January including an item expressing its outrage over Oprah Winfrey’s apparent fondness for fur,

On a recent Oprah Winfrey Show, Oprah gave all of her guests a gift of mink-trimmed slippers in drawstring mink bags. Please let Oprah know that animals raised for fur are kept in miserable conditions [etc., etc.] . . .

You know when Oprah Winfrey’s handing out mink slippers, all of this nonsense from activists about the fur industry being on the run is about as accurate as everything else the animal rights movement produces.

Source:

In Defense of Animals Newsletter. In Defense of Animals, V.2, #3, January 31, 2003.

United Poultry Concerns recently issued a press release announcing its 13th Annual Spring Vigil for Chickens urging activists to protest between April 16 and April 28 for the chickens — and for a low, low payment of just $15, UPC will supply activists with “3 color posters and 100 Chickens Brochures.”

According to the press release,

ONce chickens and eggs were symbols of Life and Spring. Today chickens have become symbols of suffering and death. In the U.S. each year, more than 8 billion baby “broiler” chickens, both males and females, are raised in filth and slaughtered for food. Worldwide more than 40 billion chickens are slaughtered every year. Chickens in the U.S. and Canada have no legal protection. Eery day millions of chickens are paralyzed with electric shocks in slaughterhouses, caged, starved, debeaked, buried alive, trashed at birth, infected with Salmonella, and tortured in laboratories. Chickens are excluded from the U.S. Humane Slaughter Act and the Animal Welfare Act.

UPC will also be holding two protest events in Washington, DC in April, including leafletting at the annual White House egg roll on April 21.

Source:

UPC 13th Annual Spring Vigil for Chicken. Press Release, United Poultry Concerns, March 12, 2003.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council this month approved a six-day bear hunt season for December 2003 to manage the bear population in the state.

What would be New Jersey’s first bear hunt since 1970 was approved in a 10-1 vote by the council> Now the proposed hunt will be the subject of public hearings before a final decision is made in September.

Officials in New Jersey are obviously worried about the killing last year of a 5-month old infant by a black bear in New York. Although there has never been a similar killing in New Jersey, complaints about black bears increased to 1,412 in 2002, up from only 1,096 in 2001. In addition, The New York Times reports that in the last two years 59 bears have been killed by animal control officers because they posed an immediate threat to people or property.

New Jersey Fish and Game Council member Jane Morton Galetto explained that she voted for the hunt because,

It’s just a matter of time before a child or an adult is killed here, and people start to say they want to see every bear wiped off the face of New Jersey.

In 2000 a similar hunt was authorized to kill 175 bears, but was withdrawn after lobbying from cities and animal rights organizations. Instead, the state spent $1 million educating people on how to avoid bears. Those groups also plan to lobby hard to prevent the December bear hunt from taking place.

The Daily Record News (NJ) quoted Angie Metler of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance as noting that New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey lobbied against the 2000 hunt adding, “we intend to hold McGreevey to his promise to protect the bears.”

The Humane Society of the United States’ Barbara Dyer told The New York Times,

We see this as really a call for a trophy hunt. We stopped the hunt before, and we pledge to stop it again.

New Jersey environmental commissioner Bradley M. Campbell, who would likely have authority over any bear hunt, said that additional study might be needed on exactly how many bears there are in New Jersey before he would be prepared to go ahead with a hunt.

Sources:

State council authorizes black bear hunt. Rob Jennings, Daily Record (New Jersey), March 8, 2003.

Bear hunt is proposed in New Jersey. Robert Hanley, The New York Time, March 8, 2003.