AnimalRights.Net

In order to protest the sale of ivory, the International Fund for Animal Welfare publicly destroyed a giant elephant tusk constructed from various pieces of ivory in London’s Trafalgar Square. But it seems a bit confused about its motivation.

According to IFAW’s wildlife campaigner, Jenny Hawley,

Elephants are intelligent and sociable animals, capable of enormous suffering. Many populations are also at risk of extinction. People must remember that every ivory item they buy increases the demand, which is met by poacher. IFAW believes ivory belongs to elephants. The only way to stop elephants being killed for their tusks is to make ivory worthless.

Where did Hawley get her economics degree from? By publicly destroying ivory, the IFAW sends a clear signal that the amount of ivory available for sale, legally or illegally, has just declined. And what happens when the quantity of a commodity for sale declines (all other things being equal) — its value increases.

Hawley continues,

By destroying its own ’stockpile’, IFAW is calling for all countries with ivory stockpiles to put them beyond use for ever. If we want to safeguard the future of elephants, then all international discussions must focus on proper long-term conservation measures rather than trade.

But, again, destroying such stockpiles would simply send the price of ivory skyrocketing which would make elephants an even more lucrative target for poachers.

Protecting elephants from poaching by strangling the supply of ivory will work just as effectively as stopping illegal drugs by attempting to strangle the supply has.

Source:

IFAW destroys giant tusk of unwanted ivory in its campaign to protect elephants. Press Release, International Fund for Animal Welfare, April 12, 2005.

A bill is currently in the California State Assembly that, if it becomes law, would make cropping the ears of dogs illegal in that state.

Ear cropping is essentially cosmetic surgery for dogs. The dog is anesthetized and then its ears are surgically altered to make them stand up erect instead of flopping to the side.

Animal rights activists oppose the surgery as unnecessary, painful and placing the dogs at risk of complications. Dog breeders defend the procedure as reducing the risk of ear infection in some cases and producing more aesthetically pleasing dogs.

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights supports the bill, with Pam Runquist saying in a press release,

When this issue came before the Legislature last year, there were dozens of dog breeders wearing buttons with the slogan, “It’s Our Choice.” We need to let the Legislature know that it’s not the dog’s choice to have a portion of their ears amputated simply for aesthetic preference of the caregiver. (Note: In response to concerns from dog breeders, this year’s bill clarifies that it is still legal for dogs with cropped ears to be shown, sold, adopted or reside within the state. Only the procedure of cropping a dog’s ears will be illegal).

Of course, much the same argument could be made about neutering dogs, which is certainly not the dog’s choice and which can cause pain and have potential side effects.

Frankly, I find ear cropping and tail docking to be a bit stupid, but cruel? No more so than other surgical alterations of dogs such as neutering.

The full text of AB 481 can be read here.

Source:

Help ban ear cropping in California. Press Release, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, March 31, 2005.

In April, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals announced that it was ending its protests against Petco after the retail chain agreed to stop selling large birds in its stores.

According to a press release at PETA’s site,

PETCO will end the sale of large birds in the company’s stores. Upon completion of the sale of the limited number currently in stock and those previously purchased from suppliers, PETCO will no longer offer large birds. The company will continue to work with its shelter partners to help those groups adopt not only dogs and cats, but to adopt homeless birds of all sizes as part of PETCO’s established “Think Adoption First” program. Think Adoption First encourages anyone who is considering adding a companion animal to his or her family to consider adoption first before making a purchase. PETA intends to assist PETCO in enlisting accredited bird rescue groups to work with the company in its in-store adoption program. PETCO will also recommend and promote flight cages for all birds. The company recognizes that birds-like all animals-need exercise, and mental and psychological stimulation to be healthy and happy.

PETA will end its boycott of PETCO and its protests at the company’s stores. In agreeing to end its campaign against PETCO, PETA will take down its “PETCOCruelty” website, remove all references to “PETNO” on all sites affiliated with the organization, and withdraw its support of the use of the “PETNO” logo by other groups.

The press release quoted Petco CEO Bruce Hall as saying,

We welcome the opportunity to work with PETA as we announce ending the sale of large birds as one of several progressive steps we are taking in our industry-leading efforts. We recognize that most of our bird customers are what we would call ‘beginning hobbyists’. Large birds are not necessarily appropriate for these individuals due to their long lifespan, size and care requirements.

Source:

PETA and PETCO Announce Agreement. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, April 2005.

In April, the Japanese press claimed that along with plans to increase the number of minke whales it kills annually, it plans to begin taking humpback and fin whales, species which it has not hunted since the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium on commercial whale hunting went into effect in 1986.

Along with minke whales, Japan currently hunts sei whales, sperm whales and Bryde’s whales as part of a limited scientific research hunting it is allowed to cull without being in violation of the commercial hunting moratorium.

According to Kyodo news agency, Japan will submit a whaling plan to the IWC ahead of its meeting this summer in which it outlines plans to almost double its current take of 440 minke whales, as well as add around 10 humpback and 10 fin whales.

An unidentified Japan Fisheries Agency official would not comment on the veracity of the report, but did tell Reuters,

However, it has been recorded that the populations of the humpback and fin whales in Antarctica are increasing. Nobody disputes this.

. . .

We always maintain that we will discuss these things scientifically, but with whales, it quickly grows emotional.

This is clearly a ploy on the part of Japan to ratchet up the rhetoric in favor of eliminating the commercial moratorium on whaling ahead of the IWC’s next meeting. Currently the moratorium is hanging on by a thread, barely surviving recent efforts by Japan and Norway to return to regulated commercial hunting of whales.

Source:

Reports: Japan to Expand Whale Hunt to New Species. Elaine Lies, Reuters, April 12, 2005.

In a finding that must be a real surprise, the Center for Regenerative Biology at the University of Connecticut has concluded that milk and meat from cloned animals is nearly identical to meat and milk from animals produced the old fashioned way.

Currently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked the food industry not to sell meat or milk from cloned animals until it can analyze the safety considerations.

The University of Connecticut research found that the meat from cloned cows contained higher levels of fat and fatty acids but at levels that were still within accepted ranges by the beef industry.

Analysis of milk from cloned animals had similar findings. Researcher Jerry Yang said the results indicated that the genes of cloned animals function as they do in non-cloned animals. Yang told the BBC,

The production of each milk protein constituent involves the elaborate regulatory function of many proteins and enzymes, and any abnormal gene expression would likely be reflected by imbalances in the constituents of milk.

These findings are consistent with two other studies published in the journal Cloning & Stem Cells in 2004 which also found that milk and meat from cloned animals were nearly identical to that from non-cloned animals.

Still, skeptics abound. Compassion in World farming director Joyce D’Silva told the BBC,

We don’t know what this technology will result in in the future; we know so far that it is unsustainable. Huge numbers of animals die. They are born with deformed lungs, hearts and kidneys which don’t function. They die slow and lingering deaths. Is this the technology that we need or want? I don’t think so.

Well, of course we don’t know what the future will bring, so we should simply ignore any technology that we lack perfect information about. That’s the animal rights way. If you don’t know something, then the last thing you want to do is emerge from ignorance.

Sources:

Produce from cloned cattle ’safe’. The BBC, April 12, 2005.

Study: Cloned Meat, Milk Nearly the Same. Associated Press, April 11, 2005.

In April, NBC News correspondent George Lewis interviewed the two college students behind SaveToby.Com, which is competing with BonsaiKitten.Com for the title of web site most hated by animal lovers.

The site features a picture of a rabbit and the claim that unless the site’s proprietors receive $50,000 by June 30, 2005 that Toby will be killed and eaten,

I am going to eat him. God as my witness, I will devour this little guy unless I receive $50,000 into my account.

If animal lovers were smart, they’d just ignore this sort of silly nonsense, but instead they post horrified e-mails that circulate until finally the issue is big enough that George Lewis interviews those responsible for NBC News.

According to one of the unnamed partners behind the site,

We’ve been getting tremendously varied responses. Many of which include death threats almost on a daily basis.

The unnamed individual maintains, however, that the site is not a hoax,

No, not at all. As a matter of fact, it’s very serious. If we don’t get $50,000, we are going to eat the rabbit.

The odd thing is that people care so much, especially given that its perfectly legal to eat rabbits.

What’s the next step? Is someone going to set up a picture of a lobster with the claim that “I’m going to eat this lobster if I don’t receive $50,000 in my account?” Fine, go ahead and eat Toby already.

But people fall for this crap and the result is that SaveToby.Com’s operators claim they’ve received $20,000 in cash (which I find hard to believe), and have a book deal — all of which they owe to the idiots circulating these stupid e-mails about the horror of the web site.

Yeah, that’s showing ‘em. You have to think that the BonsaiKitten.Com folks are kicking themselves for not starting a “we’re going to eat this Bonsai kitten if we don’t receive $50,000″ campaign. Anyone for BonsaiRabbit.com?

Source:

Fur files over rabbit death threat. George Lewis, NBC News, April 11, 2005.

Krabloonik, a Colorado-based dog sled outfit, found itself in the middle of a public controversy in April after letters-to-the editor in local newspapers accused it of killing some of its dogs with a gunshot to the head and then disposing of the bodies of the dogs in a pile of waste.

In an op-ed published in the Aspen Daily news, Krabloonik owner Dan MacEachen admitted that the organization killed dogs that were either at the end of their working lives as well as pups who turned out to be incapable of pulling sleds. MacEachen maintain in his op-ed however, that the dogs were killed humanely and that the whole process was legal under Colorado’s animal welfare laws.

A former employee of Krabloonik’s claimed that the business killed up to 35 dogs annually in this manner, though MacEachen said the actual number is much lower.

A number of other dog sledding outfits contacted by the media said that while this method of killing used to be the norm, that it is no longer widespread within dog sledding outfits.

Four-time Iditarod winner Martin Buser told The Aspen Daily News, for example, that if he needs to euthanize a dog he calls in a veterinarian who administer’s a lethal injection. Buser maintained he had not had to euthanize a dog in several years.

Lynda Plattner, who runs a 300 dog sledding outfit in Alaska, has started up a nonprofit called Alaska’s Iditarod Sled Dog Retirement Foundation whose goal is to provide a retirement program specifically for Iditarod dogs. Plattner told Denver’s ABC 7,

There is no other animal in the world like them, and based on that fact alone, they deserve to continue to receive the best care possible long after their competitive days are over.

In response to an inquiry from ABC 7, the American Humane Society confirmed MacEachen’s interpretation that euthanizing dogs with a gunshot to the head was legal in Colorado, but AHA head Marie Belew Wheatley added that, “It is inconceivable to me that a business enterprise that profits off the work and loyalty of these dogs would fail to seek another more compassionate end for these animals.”

Given the heat dog sledding already receives from animal rights activists, you’d think dog sled outfits like MacEachen’s would not want to hand them an issue on a silver platter like this.

Source:

Krabloonik defends culling of pack. Chad Abraham, The Aspen Times, April 5, 2005.

Controversy over treatment of sled dogs. Chad Abraham, Vail Daily, April 9, 2005.

Humane Association Criticizes Shooting Dogs In Head. ABC 7, The Denver Channel, April 5, 2005.

In March, Viva! brought its campaign claiming that a vegetarian diet is key to a vigorous sex life to Scotland. The groups claimed that eating a vegetarian diet can prevent impotence and baldness, but a nutrition researcher suggested the group’s claims should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Viva! director Juliet Gellatley told the Sunday Herald,

People are much more savvy now than they were 10 years ago. Over that time the medical evidence has become much stronger, not just that vegetarians lead a longer life, which they certainly do, but also that they lead a healthier life.

But Dr. Jane Scott, a professor of public health and nutrition at Glasgow University, told the Sunday Herald that the group was vastly overstating the evidence,

It’s hard to tease out the effect of diet as opposed to the other aspects of a person’s lifestyle. A lot of studies focus on cultures that don’t eat meat, but then they might not drink or smoke either, and this is quite important. . . . [And some conditions are largely genetic] The chances are, if your dad was bald, you will be bald too. As for claims that a vegetarian lifestyle cures impotence, I would be extremely dubious and would like to see some proper evidence.

Come on, proper evidence? How would that advance the vegetarian snake oil salesmen?

Source:

Forget Viagra . . . vegetables are key to a longer sex life. Paul Dalgarno, Sunday Herald, April 10, 2005.

XY Inc., a Colorado-based biotech company, has developed a technology that allows for sex selection of non-human mammals, including cows, and is in the process of making the technology commercially available.

XY Inc. signed a deal with Canada’s L’Alliance Boviteq that will see Boviteq set up a Canadian laboratory to commercialize sex-selected sperm and embryos from cattle.

Once available commercially, the technique would be of great use to dairy farms who want to increase the odds that a cows will give birth to heifer calves which can be used in milk production.

XY Inc.’s process is 90 percent accurate, but is costly because of the time it takes to sort sperm to get the correct sex. The research laboratory that Boviteq will develop will focus on speeding up the separation time so that the technique is commercially viable.

Source:

Sex selection on horizon for cattle. Capital Press, Chip Power, April 2005.

The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star published a story in March on the ongoing debate between Ringling Bros. and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

In the profile, Ringling Bros. accuses People for the Ethical Treatment of animals of putting forth a fictional representation of the circus, while PETA accuses Ringling Bros. of being one of the cruelest circuses and of being “Baby Killers” after a young elephant at the circus died in July 2004.

PETA’s Brandi Valladolid told the Daily Free Lance-Star,

We’ve been protesting Ringling Bros. for a very long time. Ringling Bros. is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to animal welfare and animal care.

. . .

[Parents should not bring their children to a Ringling Bros. circus because] Kids pick up on things we don’t think they see. They see the animals getting whipped. They see the ringmaster hitting them. It teaches a very dangerous lesson — that it’s OK to abuse animals; OK to exploit them for entertainment.

Meanwhile Ringling Bros. spokesman Darin Johnson told the newspaper that PETA’s web site attacking the circus is filled with misinformation. For example, Johnson says video footage there distorts the events surrounding the birth of an elephant at the circus. According to the Daly Free Lance-Star,

He [Johnson] said the online video of the birth only shows the calf being pulled away from the mother for its own protection and doesn’t show it being returned to her when she calmed down.

Johnson said the calf was taken away, checked and returned, just as human babies are examined by doctors then returned to their mothers.

Johnson also told the Daily Free Lance-Star that online video at PETA’s site purports to showing elephants being whipped by Ringling Bros. employees, but that the video is in fact not of Ringling Bros. elephants or employees. The Daily Free Lance-Star quoted Johnson as saying,

They took footage from every zoo and animal park in the world and spliced it together.

Source:

PETA decries circus’s ethics. Michael Zitz, March 25, 2005.