AnimalRights.Net

Back in January I mentioned protests by animal rights activists against stores in Guerneville, California.

In response to the protests and threats of a general boycott by the activists against a Guerneville stores, supporters of the stores selling fur rented out a local gay bar and held a Furrr Ball event to satirize the protests and raise money for a good cause.

Initially the money was going to be given to local group Pets Are Loving Support — a volunteer group that helps care for the pets of about 100 AIDS patients in Sonoma County. But PALS turned down the donations. According to the Press Democrat,

The nonprofit has fielded complaints and name-calling from animal-rights fanatics outraged that it would accept money from people poking fun at the Guerneville fur protest. PAL’s board decided it cannot be pulled into politics.

The money was instead donated to the National Animal Interest Alliance (gee, the animal rights activists must be happy to see NAIA get the money rather than some local animal charity).

Anyway, I tracked down this story because I was curious what had happened. Had activists managed to force the stores to stop selling furs? According to a Press Democrat story from mid-February (emphasis added),

But Stefan Howard [one of the leaders of the anti-fur protests], a Guerneville man reached by phone Sunday, spoke on behalf of the critics of fur sales: “It’s sad that our town actually held an event celebrating a product of pure cruelty.”

Animal rights supporters have halted the protests and are seeking mediation, Howard said.

“We have really focused on trying to call for a resolution of this, and sort of heal the rift,” he said. “We’re willing to consider a compromise proposal.”

Willing to consider a compromise? It was just last December that Sonoma People for Animal Rights activist Alex Bury compared vintage clothing store owner Mikki Herman, who is Jewish, to the Nazis. According to the Press Democrat,

. . . Herman said the chance for dialogue ended when Bury compared Herman’s used fur coats to the Nazi lampshades made from the skin of Jews.

Herman is Jewish and lost relatives in the Holocaust.

“There is no conversation that can be had with someone who thinks bunny fur is the same as the skin of a Jew,” Herman said. “I come from a long line of people who act on their conscience, and I’ve got not choice but to continue what I’m doing.”

Bury said she didn’t know Herman was Jewish when she made the lampshade comment but would not back away from the description.

“Animals have the same nerve endings. They feel the same pain,” Bury said. “If Hitler made things out of skin . . . and sold lampshades, I wouldn’t want them in my business. That’s how I feel about fur. Total pain and suffering.”

But now, the activists want to reach a “compromise” with people they have compared to the Nazis? Besides, what happened to Bury’s claims that they would not stop the boycott or protests until all the fur was gone.

Source:

‘Furrr Ball’ draws 150. Katy Hillenmeyer, The Press Democrat, February 2005.

Fur protests threaten to split Guerneville. Carol Benfell, The Press Democrat, December 23, 2004.

In a study published in February in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science published the results of their experiments in implanting embyronic stem cells from pigs into mice.

The researchers wanted to establish at what point it was best to implant the embryonic stem cells, so it took stem cells from varying stages of development of the pig embryo, and implanted them in the liver, pancreas and lungs of immune-deficient mice.

The researchers discovered that transplanting embyronic stem cells at too early or too late a stage would not result in new cell growth, but that if transplanted during the correct window of opportunity, the pig stem cells did lead to cell growth in the mice. Dr. Bernard Herring, at the Diabetes Institute for Immunology and Transplantation at the University of Minnesota, told National Geographic News,

What he [lead researcher Yair Reisner] has shown is that there’s a window of opportunity . If you obtain this tissue at a very defined point in time, then you can see development into islets [portions of the pancreas that secrete hormones like insulin] without risks such as teratoma formation. That’s clearly something that makes us feel very strongly that this could be a real opportunity, one that can be translated into tangible benefits much faster than other technologies.

In a statement about the research, Reisner said,

Considering the ethical issues associated with human embryonic stem cells or with precursor tissue obtained from human abortions, we believe that the use of embryonic pig tissue could afford a more simple solution to the shortage of organs.

This finding helps explain, in part, why previous efforts to transplant pig embryonic stem cells failed, since previous research had harvested the cells at a much later gestational age than what Reisner’s study found was optimal.

Of course there are still a number of major hurdles to overcome before such technologies could be used in human beings even if researchers figure out how to make embryonic stem cells produce cells in human beings, including producing pigs free of viruses that could possibly infect human beings and avoiding an immune response to the transplant of such cells.

Sources:

Pig Stem Cells to Be Used to Grow Human Organs? Stefan Lovgren, National Geographic News, February 15, 2005.

New Organs Could Come from Pig Embryos – Study. Reuters, February 14, 2005.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine was making a lot of noise in February about the National Institutes of Health’s decision to investigate PCRM’s complaint about OSU’s Spinal Cord Injury Techniques Training Course.

The course teaches researchers how to injure the spinal cords of mice and rats so that they can be used in research on spinal cord injuries. The course itself is partially funded by NIH, so the agency’s decision to investigate the course is not surprising. Given that the NIH has previously approved the course, this will likely be a routine investigation unless there are problems with the course that are above and beyond PCRM’s simple objection to conducting this sort of research in animals.

In its press release announcing the NIH’s decision, PCRM takes credit for something that actually hasn’t happened,

In 2002, PCRM was instrumental in stopping NIH-funded experiments by OSU researcher Dr. Michael Podell, who infected cats with feline immunodeficiency virus and injected them with methamphetamine (“speed”) in an attempt to create an animal model for HIV-positive humans using drugs.

And, in fact, Podell made an important discovery — that HIV-like illness in felines progress much faster in cats that were exposed to methamphetamines. Podell hypothesized that this might explain why HIV-related dementia has such a quick onset in human methamphetamine users.

It is true that Podell left Ohio State University in 2002 due to the level of harassment that animal rights activists directed at him, but the research did not stop. It was handed off to another researcher who used tissue cultures to study more closely this effect, but who made it clear that after that study was finished the research would return to using cats in the 4th or 5th year of the study (which would have been 2004 or 2005 — the grant ends May 31, 2005).

As anti-research group Protect Our Earths Treasures noted in 2003,

September 2003, five (5) cats arrive at OSU from Liberty Labs and enter protocol 020047/96A0038.

Why are we concerned? A portion of protocol, 96A0038, was used by Michael Podell to conduct his pilot study which lead to his own protocol – Cats On Meth.

PCRM might have moved on to other things, but the research on felines at OSU apparently continued.

Sources:

NIH to Investigate OSU’s Spinal Injury Course. Press Release, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, February 8, 2005.

Remembrance for the Animals Used In the Labs at The Ohio State University. Protect Our Earths Treasures, Undated, Accessed: February 28, 2005.

January 24, 2005

United States District Court
Western District of Washington at Seattle

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

v.

Christopher W. McIntosh,

Defendant,

Magistrate’s Docket No.
Case No. 05-27M

Complaint for Violation

Title 18, United States Code,
Section 844(i)

BEFORE John L. Weinberg, United States Magistrate Judge, United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle Washington.

Count 1
(Arson)

On or about January 20, 2003, at Seattle, in the Western dDistrict of Washington, CHRISTOPHER W. McINTOSH maliciously damaged and attempted to damage and destroy by means of fire and explosive materials a McDonald’s restaurant at 222 5th Avenue North, Seattle, Washington used in interstate commerce.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i).

And the complainant states that this Complaint is based on the following information:

1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). I am assigned to the Domestic Terrorism Squad in the FBI’s Seattle Office. I have been employed as a special agent for approximately five years and currently am responsible for investigating cases involving crimes committed by groups known a the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). This affidavit is based on my own investigation, as well as on information provided to me, and my revive of reports prepared by, other law enforcement personnel.

2. On January 20, 2003, at approximately 1:50 a.m., an off-duty Seattle Police Department (SPD) Officer reported a fire at the McDonald’s restaurant at 222 5th Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. The officer reported flames approximately twenty feet in the air, rising from the roof. The Seattle Fire Department (SFD) responded and extinguished the fire. Damage to the restaurant was estimated to be five thousand dollars ($5,000).

3. A witness was standing with friends in the parking lot located on the South side of the McDonalds’ restaurant at the time of the fire. The witness reported seeing flames rising from the roof of the restaurant. The witness reported that an individual appeared out of the middle of the flames and scurried down the McDonald’s roof-access ladder. The witness described this individual as a white male, approximately 15-22 years old, approximately 5′8″ tall with a thin build, weighting perhaps 150 pound, wearing a black or gray hooded jacket or sweatshirt with black pants, and carrying a black backpack over his shoulder.

4. SFD arson investigators who investigated the fire concluded that the fire had originated on the roof of the restaurant, and that it was the result of arson. SFD arson investigators determined that the fire was started by an improvised incendiary device. Investigators found a broken lock on a gate in the fence that secures access to the roof-access ladder on the South side of the restaurant and concluded that the arsonist gained access to the roof through this gate and ladder.

5. Investigators collected numerous items of evidence from the rooftop, including melted red plastic material that investigators concluded was the remnant of the fire bomb, and a fibrous herbaceous material wrapped in duct tape that investigators concluded was intended to be part of the fuse. Investigators also collected a sports-style gym bag that contained, among other items, a red plastic gas can containing a small amount of liquid, believed to be gasoline, a can of black spray paint, a hack-saw, and a pair of sunglasses with a case. Investigators concluded, based on the contents of the gym bag, that it likely had been left by the arsonist.

6. On January 20, 2003, at approximately 10:39 a.m., the Seattle arson tip line received a voicemail message. The message was transcribed as follows:

“There was an E-L-F-A-L-F hit at McDonald’s across from the Space Needle. There will be more. The fire was set on the ‘M.’ Four gallons of gas. There was a broken lock, not cut. Broken. There will be more. As long as mother earth is pillaged, raped, destroyed. As long as McDonald’s keeps hurting our furry brothers, there will be more. [Unintelligible] will be more.

7. I know that the ELF is a group that supposedly is dedicated to protecting the environment. I also know that the ALF supposedly is dedicated to advancing the cause of animal rights. Since 1996, ELF and ALF have claimed responsibility for numerous arsons that ostensibly were committed to further the causes of the environment and animal rights. Damage from those arsons has totaled tens of millions of dollars.

8. The McDonald’s restaurant located at 222, 5th Avenue North, Seattle, Washington is a few blocks from the Space Needle, a famous Seattle landmark. The voicemail message contained information that only a person involved in the arson would have known. For example, this particular McDonald’s has an “M” painted on the roof top that can be observed only from above. Moreover, crime scene investigators found that the lock that secured the roof-access ladder at the restaurant was indeed broken, rather than cut.

9. Investigators subsequently determined that the telephone call to the arson tip line had been placed from a payphone in downtown Seattle. After identifying the telephone from which the call had been placed, investigators collected two telephone books from the bank of payphones from which the telephone call to the arson tip line had been placed.

10. The FBI laboratory analyzed the evidence in this case. Although most of the evidence is clear of fingerprints or DNA, the laboratory has made a number of significant findings. Specifically, the laboratory found “Caucasian head hairs suitable for microscopic comparison purposes” on the sunglasses and sunglass case found in the gym bag recovered from the roof of McDonald’s. The FBI laboratory also found DNA suitable for comparison purposes on the sunglasses found in that bag. The FBI laboratory determined that this DNA came from more than one individual. It also determined that at least one of those persons was a male.

11. The FBI laboratory also has found a number of fingerprints in this case. First, although SPD previously had examined the can of black spray paint found in the gym bag on the roof of McDonald’s and had failed to locate any latent prints of comparison quality, the FBI laboratory conducted additional testing and found three latent fingerprints on the spray paint can. Second, the FBI found a number of latent prints on the telephone books recovered near the telephone from which the arson tip line call had been placed.

12. The FBI laboratory submitted the latent fingerprints found on the can of spray paint to the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and determined that the fingerprints match the fingerprint record of CHRISTOPHRE WELLS McINTOSH, a Caucasian male born July 17, 1982. According to his NCIC record, McINTOSH is 5′10″ tall and weighs 150 pounds. The FBI Laboratory compared McINTOSH’s fingerprint record with the latent prints recovered from the phone books, but with negative results.

13. According to arrest and other records, since 2000, McINTOSH, has been arrested in various states, including Oregon, California, Wisconsin, and Illinois. In particular, McIntosh was arrested in Portland, Oregon, on February 26, 2003 and March 5, 2003, approximately a month after the McDonald’s arson. (McINTOSH supplied the alias, David Lester McIntosh, McINTOSH’s brother’s name, and provided a date of birth of October 30, 1984, during these arrests). Officer James Stegmeyer of the Portland Police Department, who participated in the March 5, 2003 arrest, recalls that McINTOSH was wearing a black jacket and had a backpack.

14. On September 23, 2004, I interviewed McINTOSH’s parents, Ronald and Kathryn McIntosh in Maple Shade, New Jersey. I told his parents that I was investigating an assault that had taken place in Portland, Oregon, and asked McINTOSH’s parents to have McINTOSH contact me if they heard from him.

15. McINTOSH’s parents told me that McINTOSH was not a committed animal rights activist, but recalled that McINTOSH had become involved in causes, like animal rights, based upon that girls that he dated. McINTOSH’s parents confirmed that, when they last saw him the week before, McINTOSH had a black backpack and a grey hooded sweatshirt, and that McINTOSH often wore black clothing. McINTOSH’s parents knew that McINTOSH had been in Seattle, Washington, but could not recall the month or the year.

16. On October 2, 2004, McINTOSH was arrested in Arcata, California, for disorderly conduct and impersonating another person to avoid prosecution. (McINTOSH supplied the officers the alias, David Lester McIntosh, with a date of birth of October 30, 1984). Following his arrest, McINTOSH was held at the Humboldt County Detention Facility, in California. FBI agents subsequently obtained a search warrant from the United States District Court, Northern District of California, for blood, hair samples, and major case prints from McINTOSH, and, on October 6, 2004, executed that warrant at the Humboldt County Detention Facility.

17. The FBI laboratory has compared the evidence found at the sight of the arson with the samples taken from McINTOSH. It has determined that McINTOSH is “the major contributor” of the DNA found on the sunglasses recovered at the scene of the arson. It has determined that no conclusion can be made as to whether McINTOSH is the source of two hairs found at the scene. (The laboratory report notes that approximately 20 months passed between the crime and collection of known head hair samples from McINTOSH and that hair characteristics can change over time.) It has determined that McINTOSH is not the source of other hairs found at the scene.

18. After executing the warrant, agents told McINTOSH that they wished to interview him and advised McINTOSH of his Miranda rights. McINTOSH signed an advice of rights form and agreed to speak with the agents. The agents asked McINTOSH where he was in January 2003. McINTOSH told agents that he arrived in Seattle on Christmas Even of 2002 and that he had left Seattle in early March of 2003. McINTOSH further stated that he had signed in at a youth center located in Seattle and that he had done so using his brother’s name, David McIntosh.

19. I have reviewed records obtained pursuant to subpoena from a youth center in Seattle, Washington. Sign in logs for January 14, 15, 16, and 21, 2003, show that someone signed in on those dates using the name David McIntosh, David M., or just David, and, in each case, the date of birth October 30, 1984. I showed a staff member from the youth center a photograph of McINTOSH. The staff member confirmed that McINTOSH was the person who signed in under these names on these dates. The staff member also told me that McINTOSH had been dating an individual named Maria. The name Maria or Maria G appears next to McINTOSH’S alias on the logs for each of the four dates in January 2003.

20. On October 23, 2004, I received a phone call from an individual who identified himself as CHRISTOPHER McINTOSH. McINTOSH told me that he had learned that FBI Agents had visited his parent’s house. McINTOSH wanted to make it clear that he had not been involved in the Portland, Oregon, assault. I told McINTOSH that his fingerprints had been linked to the arson of a McDonald’s restaurant in Seattle, Washington. McINTOSH became quiet and offered no explanation as to why his fingerprints were found on evidence left at the crime scene. McINTOSH did state at one point that he did not know what I was talking about. I asked McINTOSH to tell me his side of the story. McINTOSH stated repeatedly that “this was a new development” and told me that he would have to get back to me on this. McINTOSH has not re-contacted me.

21. On November 19, 2004, another FBI Special Agent interviewed an ex-girlfriend of McINTOSH’s, who was incarcerated at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, Wilsonville, Oregon. She said that she had started dating McINTOSH approximately one month after the arson. She met McINTOSH while panhandling in Portland, Oregon, and lived with McINTOSH in various shelters. In February or March of 2003, McINTOSH asked her to travel with him to New York. During their two-week long trip to New York, McINTOSH told her that he intentionally had burned down a McDonald’s restaurant in Seattle, Washington. McINTOSH told her that he had started the fire in the restroom by accessing some wiring in a fan or electrical outlet.

22. On December 29, 2004, I interviewed McINTOSH’s former girlfriend a second time. She told me that she had recalled some additional details that she had not provided during her original interview. Most significantly, she recalled that the McDonald’s restaurant which McINTOSH claimed to have burned down was located next to the Space Needle in Seattle. She also recalled that McINTOSH wore black clothing, and that one article of McINTOSH’s clothing appeared to be burned.

23. I have talked with Captain David Pagan of the Seattle Fire Department’s Fire Investigation Unit about other fires or attempted fires at McDonald’s restaurants in the Seattle area. Captain Pagan has reviewed SFD’s records and has told me that the fire that occurred on January 20, 2003 at the McDonald’s restaurant by the Space Needle is the only known Seattle-area McDonald’s fire in recent years. I also have talked with an owner/operator of five McDonald’s restaurants in the Seattle area, and with the Security Manager for McDonald’s’ Seattle-area stores. Neither was aware of any fire at a Seattle McDonald’s other than the January 2003 fire at the restaurant located at 222 5th Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, or of any incident involving tampering with fans or electrical outlets in aMcDonald’s restroom.

24. On January 18, 2005, I interviewed Maria Gardner. Gardner identified McINTOSH as Gardner’s former boyfriend. Gardner stated that she dated McINTOSH in Seattle, Washington in January of 2003. Gardner stated that McINTOSH planned and committed the arson at the McDonald’s restaurant and admitted that Gardner, herself, had served as the lookout during the arson. Gardner stated that she was present when McINTOSH called the arson tip line. Gardner listened to the recording of that call and identified the voice as McINTOSH’s.

25. During the course of this investigation, I have investigated a number of other suspects other than McINTOSH, including some who have a history of targeting McDonald’s or other fast food restaurants, and some who were rumored to have been involved in the arson. DNA samples and fingerprint records from many of these suspects have been compared with evidence from this case, all with negative results. Based upon my investigation, I have ruled out each of the other persons whom I have investigated as a viable suspect in the case.

26. I am aware that McDonald’s is a national restaurant chain headquartered in Illinois that operates both company-owned and franchised stores throughout the United States. The McDonald’s store at 222 5th Avenue North, Seattle, Washington is owned by a franchisee who owns five Seattle-area stores. McDoanld’s has a national distribution system that supplies menu items to both company and franchised stores around the country. Franchisees in turn pay fees to the corporation. Because of its location near the Space Needle, the Experience Music Project, and Seattle Center, all of which are popular tourist destinations, many of the customers of the McDonald’s restaurant at 222 5th Avenue, North, Seattle, Washington are tourists, including, in many cases, tourists from other states and countries. As a result of these facts, the McDonald’s restaurant is a building used in interstate commerce.

27. Based on the foregoing, I submit that there is probable cause to believe that CHRISTOPHER W. McINTOSH has committed a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i).

Ted R. Halla, Complainant
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Based on the Complaint sworn to before me, and subscribed in my presence, the Court hereby finds that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense set forth in the Complaint.

DATED: this 24 day of January, 2005.

John L. Weinberg
United States Magistrate Judge

On February 15, Compassion Over Killing filed a lawsuit against several egg producers which display Atlanta-based United Egg Producers’ “Animal Care Certified” logo on cartons of eggs produced. The logo appears on eggs produced by more than 80 percent of egg producers in the United States, but Compassion Over Killing charges that the certification is deceptive to consumers.

United Egg Producers began its certification program in 2002. According to the UEP web site, egg producers are audited annually as to whether or not they meet guidelines the UEP has set for animal care. According to UEP,

The guidelines place top priority on the comfort, health and safety of the chickens and include:

- Increased cage space per hen, which is being phased in to avoid market disruptions.

- Standards for molting procedures based on the most current, verified scientific studies.

- Standards for trimming of chicksÂ’ beaks, when necessary, to avoid pecking and cannibalism.

- Maintaining constant supply of fresh feed, water and air ventilation throughout the chicken house and monitoring for ammonia.

- Standards for daily inspection of each bird as well proper handling and transportation.

- Availability of a new training video to instruct producer staffs on the proper handling of chickens to avoid injury to the animals.

Producers which comply with the standards set out by United Egg Producers are allowed to have their eggs carry an “Animal Care Certified” stamp.

According to a press release, Compassion Over Killing filed it lawsuit, “alleging that the “Animal Care Certified” (ACC) logo stamped on egg cartons deceives shoppers by conveying a false message of humane animal care.” Compassion Over Killing claims the certification is deceptive because the guidelines still allow egg producers to,

* Confine birds in cages so small they can’t even spread their wings,

* Slice off parts of their beaks without painkiller, and

* Starve them to the point where they’ve lost up to 30 percent of their bodyweight.

Compassion Over Killing notes that the Better Business Bureau examined the certification label at COK’s request and found it deceptive, but, of course, the BBB has no sort of legal authority in this area, and so far the Federal Trade Commission hasn’t taken up the issue.

A spokesman for the United Egg Producers told the Associated Press that COK’s lawsuit was “a nuisance lawsuit.”

Sources:

Animal Advocacy Group Sues Over Eggs. Associated Press, February 15, 2005.

Animal Care. United Egg Producers, Undated.

COK Takes Retailers and Egg Producer to Court for Misleading Claims on Egg Cartons. Press release, Compassion Over Killing, February 15, 2005.

A brief little blurb appeared in India’s Express News Service earlier this month that read,

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will organize an awareness campaign against cow slaughter on Tuesday at the Panchwati Circle on C G Road. Dressed as ‘angel of death’ and ‘cow’, PETA activists will enact the slaughtering of a cow to create an awareness about the ill-treatment meted out to the cattle.

Alleging that these animals are treated badly at the slaughter houses, PETA plans to spread the message that ‘Leather is not vegetarian’ and promote the use of goods made from synthetic material.

I just can’t imagine a better costume for a PETA activist than the angel of death — maybe Ingrid Newkirk could dress up like that for Halloween?

Anyway, intrigued, I couldn’t find much else about this specific event, but apparently PETA has been conducting simulated cow slaughters in India for quite some time.

A press release sent out by Jason Baker in February 2001 noted that PETA planned to stage a simulated calf slaughter to protests an abattoir in front of the Gateway to India, which is a popular tourist attraction in Mumbai. According to that press release,

To draw attention to the suffering of cattle at Deonar, an ‘Angel of Death’ will beat a life-like ‘bull calf’ to death, soaking the pavement in his ‘blood’, in front of The Gateway to India while PETA members hold signs reading, ‘India: Stop Cruel Cattle transport’ and ‘Close Deonar Now’. PETA is protesting at the Gateway, Mumbai’s top tourist draw, hoping to educate both local residents and tourists about the sad state of cattle in Mumbai.

Then in October 2002, PETA’s Poorva Joshipura sent out a press release that PETA would do the same thing in Delhi to protest the government’s failure to pass an animal cruelty law that PETA favored. According to that press release,

To draw attention to the suffering of animals during transport to slaughter, an ‘Angel of Death’ will beat a life-like ‘bull calf’, soaking the pavement in his ‘blood’ (red paint), at Jantar Mantar crossing while PETA members hold signs reading, ‘India: Stop Cruel Transport’ and ‘Vajpayee: Strengthen Penalties for Animal Abuse’. PETA is protesting in Delhi, hoping to encourage Prime Minister Vajpayee to pass legislation that would increase the currently outdated and ineffective penalties for overcrowded transport and other cruelty to animals. PETA also hopes to encourage officials to take tangible action to stop rampant beating and such severe and unlawful overcrowding of animals during transport that their bones break, they suffocate and many die.

I’d love to see pictures/and or video of that.

Sources:

PETA to stage ‘cow slaughter’. Express News (India), February 15, 2005.

‘Calf’ To Be Beaten And Tortured By PETA. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, October 23, 2002.

‘Calf’ Effigy To Be Slaughtered In Front Of Gateway To India. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, February 20, 2001.

As everyone reading this is probably well aware, the ban on hunting foxes with hounds finally went into effect in Great Britain earlier this month. Although pro-hunting groups still have some limited legal options left, it is likely that the opponents of fox hunting will prevail and fox hunting with hounds will enter a very odd quasi-legal status, given the likely lack of enthusiasm on the part of police to enforce the ban and the confusion that the ban creates about what is and is not a legal hunt.

Shortly after the ban finally went into effect, The Daily Post published a profile of League Against Cruel Sports and North Wales Animal Rights activist Judi Hewitt which, to my mind, really did a nice job of inadvertently summing up the idiocy of the anti-hunt position.

Characterizing defenders of hunting as “evil people” Hewitt told The Daily Post,

The ban was good news, but I can’t understand how some limited hunting will still be allowed. All killing of wildlife should end, and I can’t stop until it does. The hunters complain about their civil rights — but what about the civil rights of those who want to visit the countryside without seeing innocent creatures horribly killed?

So let me get this straight — Hewitt won’t rest until rural areas are free of “all killing of wildlife” but she’s taken up the standard on behalf of foxes? She wants to be spared “seeing innocent creatures horribly killed” in natural settings, but comes to the aid of one of the cleverest hunters in the animal kingdom, the fox? (Foxes will, for example, engage in what is euphemistically called “surplus hunting” — killing far more prey than it can eat at the time in order to bury the carcasses and dig them up later).

How does Hewitt get from the proposition that killing wildlife is wrong to the completely contradictory proposition that foxes are “innocent”? Why do people become “evil” when they simply do to the fox what the fox has no problem at all doing to “innocent” birds and rodents?

Somebody wake me up when these people start making sense.

Source:

No rest for ‘evil people’. Andrew Forgrave, Daily Post, February 17, 2005.

Steven Wise apparently has a new book out, Though the Heavens May Fall. The book is ostensibly about an 18th century British court case that helped turn the tide against slavery in that country, and of course you can probably imagine the sort of lesson that Wise wants us to take from that (if you can’t, its that such a similar case could turn the tide toward animal rights).

As animal rights activists go, Wise is relatively harmless. He has a complex model — widely criticized by other activists — that would grant certain species legal rights based upon how likely they are to have the sort of sense of self that human beings have. Its overly complex and unworkable in this writer’s opinion, but at least Wise doesn’t run around naked or make statements that killing those he disagrees with is not such a bad idea.

But he also used an argument that is simply stupid, unconvincing, and a bit out-of-character given Wise’s legalists arguments. He gave a speech at the University of Michigan in February in which he said,

Those of us who have had the opportunity to look a chimpanzee in the eye know that we are looking at a creature who is almost like us.

Both this — and its negation — are simply non-sequiturs that might reveal something about the personal preferences of the person making the statement, but add absolutely nothing to the debate about whether a chimpanzee or other animal is similar enough to human beings to warrant granting it rights.

And just to make clear, the following sentence is also irrelevant,

Those of us who have had the opportunity to look a chimpanzee in the eye know that we are not looking at a creature who is almost like us.

Wise should be smarter than this given the criticism he’s taken from other activists. If Joan Dunayer says something like,

Those of us how have had the opportunity to study a beehive closely know that we are looking at creatures who are almost like us.

Dunayer thinks bees should have rights. Wise does not. Presumably Wise does not believe intuitions based upon gazing at a beehive are enough to make a difference, so why does he pull out this canard in trying to convince us that his intuitions upon gazing into a chimpanzee’s eyes should do the trick?

Source:

Speaker: society should move toward granting animals rights. Pauline Lewis, The Michigan Daily, February 17, 2005.

One of the things that has amazed me about the animal rights movement over these past eight years is just how inaccurate parts of that movement are and, even more bizarre, that they just don’t care.

For example, the first time I saw it, I assumed In Defense of Animals sold this t-shirt because they didn’t know the quote on it is bogus. Today, I’m pretty much convinced they just don’t give a damn. Taking their cue from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, many animal rights groups and activists put their ideology front and center, with a commitment to honesty and accuracy a distant second or third. Selling a t-shirt for years with a bogus quote is simply what these people do — its part and parcel of the way they think and operate.

That being said, this is also a problem with some of those opposed to extremist animal rights and environmental groups. For the moment, I’m going to pick on Whitney Blake who is the Daily Associate Editor at the Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Virginia. Blake wrote an op-ed about animal rights and environmental terrorism which said, in part,

Is burning down anything they oppose a constructive way to advocate their convictions? It seems counter-productive, since more resources will have to be extracted from Mother Earth to rebuild. Such extremism undermines various environmental causes which can be trumpeted and advocated in a peaceful manner. Mainstream groups like the Sierra Club, however, haven’t been quick to condemn the acts mentioned above. A search of press releases on their Web site reveals no mention of the Earth Liberation Front or eco-terrorism.

In fact, the Sierra Club has been very forward in condemning ecoterrorism. In August 2003, for example, the Sierra Club issued a press release — which is on its website here denouncing environmental terrorism saying,

The Sierra Club strongly condemns all acts of violence in the name of the environment, and we specifically denounce the Earth Liberation Front’s recent acts of arson and vandalism at a construction site in San Diego and at car dealerships in Southern California.

While nonviolent civil disobedience has a distinguished place in American history, the Sierra Club uses only lawful means to protect the environment. We can respect the decision of those who, by undertaking acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, put themselves at risk, but peaceful disobedience and violence are vastly different acts. No matter what the motivation, the Sierra Club does not condone any acts of violence.

Moreoever, the Sierra Club actively fought Paul Watson’s recent attempt to take control of the Sierra Club board. A quick Google search of “Sierra Club ecoterrorism” produces plenty of pages showing the Sierra Club’s consistent denunciation of ecoterrorism. Blake didn’t do her homework, and ended up libeling the Sierra Club.

But Blake is a paragon of research and equanimity compared to some of the banter and claims that show up from time to time on anti-animal rights mailing lists. As we oppose the animal rights movement on issues that are often very personal and emotional to many people, it is important that we take a deep breath and perhaps a step backward and make sure we don’t become a mere reflection of the movement we oppose.

Source:

Burning down the house. Whitney Blake, The Cavalier Daily (University of Virginia), February 17, 2005.

Statement on recent acts of violence in the name of the environment. Press Release, The Sierra Club, August 25, 2003.

In February, the The Journal of Neuroscience published the results of efforts to use gene therapy to boost levels of a protein that is believed to preserve brain cells and may someday form the basis of a treatment for Parkinson’s Disease.

The protein is glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF). It has been tested in human beings but so far with mixed results. A trial of GDNF therapy in human beings had to be stopped in October 2004 due to safety concerns. In that trial, GDNF was introduced directly into the brain of 34 patients. Four of the patients developed antibodies against GDNF within six months of the trial. In conjunction with research on primates that found the brain cells of the animals began to break down after the GDNF treatment, the human trial was stopped.

An earlier smaller-scale trial of GDNF in the UK showed improvement in Parkinson’s patients given GDNF, and there’s debate over whether the difference in the two studies is related to the effect of GDNF or possible differences in the protocols of the two studies.

A couple teams of international researchers, however, recently published their results of another method of delivering GDNF — using gene therapy to force the bodies of affected animals to produce GDNF. There are likely to be a number of advantages to this over the current practice of simply introducing it directly into the brain, including producing GDNF at levels that are likely to be safer for the patient.

In research sponsored by Lund University in Lund, Sweden; the University of Cambridge; and the McKnight Brain Institute and the Genetics Institute of the University of Florida, researchers used gene therapy to insert copies of a gene responsible for creating GDNF in the front part of the brain into monkeys. Researchers then induced an animal model of Parkinson’s in the monkeys by exposing them to a drug that destroys dopamine producing cells.

After 17 weeks, monkeys that had received the gene therapy not only had a significantly higher ability to perform tasks than a control group that did not receive the gene therapy, but analysis of brain tissue showed the GDNF had a protective affect on the dopamine producing cells in the experimental group of monkeys.

Dr. Nicholas Mzyczka, of the University of Florida’s College of Medicine, said in a press release announcing the results,

The simplest question we’re asking is, “Does any particular combination of proteins prevent or accelerate degeneration of the neurons?” For some time Dr. [Ron] Mandel has been working on the idea of introducing a vector into the brain that would express GDNF. What they’ve found is that if you get low-level expression, you can prevent cell death in a part of the brain called the substantial nigra. That’s been shown before in rodent models, but it’s encouraging to see data that it works in higher animals like monkeys.

In the same press release, Mandel said of the current status of GDNF as a possible treatment for Parkinson’s,

Our strategy is a neuroprotective concept and would only be amenable for early stage patients to keep a good quality of life. It would be a huge change in the way treatment is done. We know the GDNF protects the neurons in primates from the model that we use, so that’s good. We know we can use very low doses that are still effective, so that’s good. But we need a safety net. Once we turn it on, it’s on for life. So we have to control it, and we’re working on this as we speak. But it’s not ready for clinical trials.

Source:

Gene therapy for Parkinson’s Disease moves forward in animals. Press Release, University of Florida Health Science Center, February 10, 2005.

Parkinson’s trial halted. Helen Pearson, Nature, October 5, 2004.