AnimalRights.Net

Kim McCoy, one of the animal rights activists who is part of Paul Watson’s plan to seize control of the Sierra Club board of directors, has posted the following statement about her candidacy on her web site (emphasis added),

Animal Rights and Human Population

An additional misconception that I would like to clear up is that there is no alliance between animal rights people and “anti-immigration” people. Honestly, the two movements could not be more separate, and these allegations are nothing more than an attempt to distract from the real issues and power struggles at hand in this election.

In recent weeks, I have heard animal rights activists being falsely labeled as “anti-human.” This is simply not true. The animal rights movement is a movement of compassion for all species. Certainly this would include humans as well as non-humans, and for this reason, I (and many animal rights activists) fully support and champion the promotion of human rights. However, the fact remains that human population is the single largest threat to life on earth, and if nothing is done to slow or reverse the growth of human population, it is inevitable that all species will suffer, including both humans and non-human species. A wise friend recently said to me, “One of the most wonderful things about promoting vegetarianism is that we can claim with all honesty that what is best for us is also best for the animals and the environment.” I could not agree with this statement more, and I will add that, from my perspective (looking at the big picture), this is fundamentally true of the human population issue as well.

There is a lot at stake here, and our planet and its inhabitants need forward-thinking advocates who will speak on their behalf, even in the face of controversy and unpleasant accusations. My hope is that the goodhearted, gentle souls who fight against injustices in this broken world will turn inwards and really think about this issue; think about the repercussions of failing to address human population growth; think about the kind of planet they would like to see for their children and grandchildren, and for the offspring of countless other species of plants and animals. Addressing human population growth from a purely ecological perspective is entirely consistent with the protection of human and non-human rights and does not damage either movement, but failing to do so will.

Watson’s alliance with immigration foes has caused some consternation and criticism among liberal-leaning activists, so McCoy’s effort to say that there simply is no such alliance is understandable. But she might have clued in Paul Watson, since the Sea Shepherd site endorsed all three of the leading anti-immigration candidates for the Sierra Club board in a February press release,

The Sea Shepherd Endorsement for Sierra Club Directors

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is endorsing the following distinguished candidates for the 2004 election to the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club.

We urge our supporters who are members of the Sierra Club to look for your ballots in March 2004 and to consider voting for the candidates listed below.

. . .

Governor Richard Lamm

Why: Because as a three time elected Democratic Governor of Colorado with an excellent environmental record, Dick Lamm will be a strong and distinguished voice on the Board. Governor Lamm has been a long time supporter of the Sierra Club.

Frank L. Morris

Why: Because as a retired State Department foreign service officer and former executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation he brings both a knowledge of international affairs and minority concerns to the Sierra Club Board. His ballot statement talks about helping the Club with one of its longstanding internal challenges, diversifying its membership base. “I seek a leadership position in our Club because I deeply share our core values of protecting the planet,” he wrote. “I will effectively represent us in settings not always open to our message-in minority and disadvantaged communities, in Congress, and in leading the defeat of President Bush.”

Dr. David Pimentel

Why: Because Cornell University entomologist Prof. David Pimental is a respected ecologist and expert on the impact of human population growth on eco-systems. The Sierra Club needs the expertise of Dr. Pimentel.

Lamm, by the way, shares some of the animal rights animosity toward medical technology and research. As he put it in an infamous 1984 speech, “We’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society — our kids — build a reasonable life.”

Sources:

Personal statement from Kim McCoy. Kim McCoy, Undated.

The Sea Shepherd Endorsement for Sierra Club Directors. Press Release, Sea Shepherd, February 12, 2004.

In 1998, the United Kingdom began a study designed to determine what role badgers play in transmitting bovine tuberculosis. According to a report in the Western Morning News, that study has been repeatedly disrupted by animal rights activists who have destroyed thousands of traps used in the study.

Badgers are a protected species in the UK, but the study protocol allows limited trapping and killing of badgers in areas that have been hit hard by bovine tuberculosis. Badgers can carry bovine tuberculosis but the extent to which the animals are responsible for outbreaks of the disease in the UK is hotly disputed.

According to the Western Morning News, about 5,600 badgers have been killed as part of the study since 1998.

The Western Morning News quoted an unnamed spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who said that over the last 6 years of the study, 7,882 traps have had to be repaired or replaced after being damaged by animal rights activist at a total cost of £394,000. The study itself cost £6.5 million.

Source:

Activists Damage Thousands Of Traps. Western Morning News, January 12, 2004.

A group calling itself No Justice, Just Us published names, addresses and phone numbers of State Street employees on a web site before the site was taken down.

Animal rights activists have targeted State Street because of alleged links it has with Huntingdon Life sciences.

The web site published the personal details about employees of State Street in addition to employees of HLS and HLS customer Yamanouchi, along with this message,

Make the bastards pay. . . . You will find after the list [of employees] is a selection of tips and tricks for smashing the monsters who must pay for murdering the animals at HLS.

. . .

The people listed here are not bit part players. They are the ones that matter. Think about what is going on inside Huntingdon and don’t feel frustrated . . . take out all that anger on the people listed here.

Although Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty launched a campaign against State Street in October 2003, it claims it has no connection with No Justice, Just Us.

Source:

Bankers Named On Animal Rights Site. Allison Martin, TheWharf.Co.UK, February 12, 2004.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activist Kerry Whitburn, 34, was sentenced to two months in jail in January for breaking into a UK pet store. He actually only served one month and was released on January 30.

Whitburn pleaded guilty to breaking into The Fish Specialist after seeing a television documentary which included footage of the shop. Whitburn broke a glass door with a crow bar in order to steal two marmoset monkeys that he noticed in the footage.

The monkeys were not in the pet shop when he broke in, however, and Whitburn managed to cut himself on the glass leaving behind plenty of evidence of his involvement. Despite previous animal rights-related convictions — including a 2001 conviction for an anti-Huntingdon Life Sciences protest — Whitburn received the light sentence.

And Whitburn is very aware that law enforcement in the UK is unwilling or unable to do more than slap his wrists for such crimes. While in jail he wrote a letter to supporters,

“HI EVERYONE!” Hope everyone out there is fine and well, and living a positive cruelty free life. Course you are! So, here I am again! For those who don’t know, I’m serving a 2-month sentence for attempting to ’steal’ 2 marmoset monkeys from a tiny, bare cage in a grotty pet shop in Nottingham. I won’t go into detail, as those who know me will confirm that if I give the whole complex story I’ll be writing a novel, not a short article. Oooh, I nearly broke into a waffle then, during that last sentence. So, for Jo-Ann’s sake, all I’ll say is the pet shop appeared on an undercover T.V. documentary, and was voted 2nd worse in the UK.

So, went to court on Jan 5th and received 2 months but will only serve one. Hell, this animal rights lark can really get you in trouble, can’t it! Maybe I’m expected to come to prison and learn my lesson, don’t you think? Hmmmm, nah – maybe I won’t! Besides, I’m illiterate when it comes to the law concerned with the abuse of animals! Sorry, your honour.

Yeah, the British government is really doing everything it can to deter animal rights crimes, isn’t it?

Sources:

Letter from Kerry Whitburn. Kerry Whitburn, January 28, 2004.

ELP November 2001 Newsletter. Earth Liberation Prisoners Network, November 2001.

Pets Raid Man Faces Prison. Nottingham Evening Post, December 10, 2003.

In February, British animal rights activists Paul Holiday and Paul Leboutillier were sentenced to jail for making thousands of harassing phone calls to a variety of companies and individuals, including to the homes and workplace of Covance and Huntingdon Life Sciences employees.

Holiday was sentenced to 18 months and Leboutillier to 5 years.

Source:

2 activists sent to prison. Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network, February 26, 2004.

In late December 2003 the Animal Rights Militia claimed that it had sent threatening letters to Huntingdon Life Sciences employees as well as employees of a number of companies that are customers of HLS or have some other sort of economic relationship with the firm.

Here is the Animal Rights Militia’s claim in its entirety,

The Animal Rights Militia in the UK has mailed out to 200 HLS workers, HLS supplier company directors, staff of HLS japanese customer Yamanouchi and every Daiichi worker in the UK threatening violent retribution if they do not sever their links with HLS by the end of the year 2003.

In addition we have written to all the directors of the letting agents for Daiichi’s UK sales office, Nelson-Bakewell and the landlords Royal London Asset Management, and also to Yamanouchi’s landlords Emerson and the letting agents Orbit in the UK giving them until the end of the year 2003 to evict Daiichi from their UK sales office and Yamanouchi from their new European headquarters in Surrey or face the consequences of harboring the animal killers.

For the animals dying in their cages killed by the monsters we will use all means at our disposal to finish off HLS. We mean business, we are deadly serious, we are fighting for victory and fighting for the innocent and nothing will stop us. We urge activists worldwide to go to war on HLS and finish them off for good.

For the animals always, onwards to victory, ARM

I think they forgot to threaten the brother of the janitor who works across the street from someone who dated an HLS employee 10 years ago.

Source:

Animal Rights Militia Communication. DirectAction.Info, December 23, 2003.

Earth Liberation Front extremists did about $30,000 in damage to a Charlottesville, Virginia building site in early February.

Activists set fire to a bulldozer and damaged other construction equipment at the site, which is being developed into a mix retail, commercial and residential units.

The ELF extremists let behind a banner reading “YOUR CONSTRUCTION = LONG TERM DESTRUCTION – ELF.”

The FBI is investigating the crime.

Source:

ELF Damages Construction Equipment at Charlottesville Site. Frontline Information Service, February 9, 2004.

Radical group claims damage. Carlos Santos, Richmond Times-Dispatch (Virginia), February 11, 2004.

BILL NUMBER: SB 1520	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Burton


                        FEBRUARY 19, 2004


   An act to add Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) to
Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to force fed
birds.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   SB 1520, as introduced, Burton.  Force fed birds.
   Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person
or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the
person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment
regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.
   This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force
feeding a bird, as defined.  The bill would prohibit a person from
force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver
beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another
person to do so.  The bill would also prohibit a product from being
sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the
purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size.  The bill
would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of
those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.
   Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  no.
State-mandated local program:  no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) is added
to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:


      CHAPTER 13.4.  FORCE FED BIRDS


   25980.  For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
   (a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose.
   (b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to
consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would
consume voluntarily while foraging.  Force feeding methods include,
but are not limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other
device inserted into the bird's esophagus.
   25981.  A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of
enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size, or hire another person
to do so.
   25982.  A product may not be sold in California if it is the
result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird'
s liver beyond normal size.
   25983.  (a) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as
qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or
officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a
public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code,
may issue a citation to a person or entity that violates this
chapter.
   (b) A citation issued under this section shall require the person
cited to pay a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each violation, and up to one thousand dollars ($1,000)
for each day the violation continues.  The civil penalty shall be
payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce
this chapter to offset the costs to the agency related to court
proceedings.
   (c) A person or entity that violates this chapter may be
prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the
violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the
violation occurred.       

SENATE BILL 51

46th legislature – STATE OF NEW MEXICO – second session, 2004

INTRODUCED BY

Richard M. Romero

AN ACT

RELATING TO CRIMES; PROHIBITING INTRACARDIAC ADMINISTRATION OF
EUTHANASIA ON A CONSCIOUS ANIMAL.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:

     Section 1. A new section of Chapter 30, Article 18 NMSA
1978 is enacted to read:

     “[NEW MATERIAL] INTRACARDIAC INJECTION PROHIBITED ON
CONSCIOUS ANIMAL.–

          A. It is unlawful for an employee or agent of an
animal control service or facility, animal shelter or humane
society to use intracardiac injection to administer euthanasia
on a conscious animal if the animal could first be rendered
unconscious in a humane manner.

          B. A person who violates the provisions of
Subsection A of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Section
31-19-1 NMSA 1978.”

- 2 -

The gray wolf is currently on the endangered species list, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service required Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to submit plans for managing the gray wolf in their states. The USFWS approved Idaho’s and Montana’s, but won’t allow those states to implement their programs until Wyoming submits a suitable plan. Wyoming is sticking to its guns and apparently the courts will end up deciding the matter.

The USFWS rejected Wyoming’s plan even though 10 of 11 wildlife biologists appointed by the federal government approved of the plan. In rejecting Wyoming’s plan, the USFWS said that it objected to the way Wyoming classified gray wolves both as trophy animals and as predators, although the federal government apparently approved of this designation when it was originally passed by Wyoming’s legislature; that Wyoming’s plan to maintain 15 wolf packs was too low, despite the fact that the USFWS expressed its approval in early; and that the minimum size for each wolf pack was not set at six.

In late February, Wyoming’s state House passed HB 111 which reaffirms the dual classification of wolves and sets Wyoming on a legal collision course with the USFWS.

Sources:

Wyoming wolf plan points to court. Tom Morton, Casper Star Tribune (Wyoming), February 21, 2004.

State may sue feds over wolves. Bill Luckett, Casper Star Tribune (Wyoming), February 3, 2004.