AnimalRights.Net

The Humane Society of the United States and East Bay Animal Advocates filed a lawsuit today seeking to force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate and oversee the slaughter of poultry. The USDA currently excludes poultry from its oversight of animals covered by the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

The lawsuit will turn largely on the definition of the word livestock.

The HMSA requires the USDA to ensure that “cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine and other livestock” are humanely slaughtered. The USDA does not define livestock to include poultry. Animal rights activists maintain that poultry indeed qualify as livestock.

According to an HSUS press release announcing the lawsuit

Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president of Animal Protection Litigation for The HSUS states, “When Congress enacted the HMSA, the dictionary definition of ‘livestock’ was ‘domestic animals used or raised on a farm.’ Yet today, nearly 50 years later, 95 percent of domestic animals raised on farms are still entirely unprotected during the slaughter process.”

Currently the USDA does inspect poultry slaughter facilities, but for safety reasons rather than for compliance with humane slaughter regulations.

According to a Washington Post story on the lawsuit, however,

Although there is no specific humane handling and slaughter law for poultry, he [USDA spokesman Steven Cohen] said, inspectors and veterinarians stationed in every poultry processing plant “monitor production so i a plant has evidence of excessive bruising or other conditions that would indicate handling in a manner inconsistent with humane handling, we would necessarily look into that operation.

Sources:

The HSUS Files Lawsuit Challenging USDA’s Exclusion of Birds from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Press Release, Humane Society of the United States, November 21, 2005.

Humane Society to Sue Over Poultry Slaughtering. Elizabeth Williamson, Washington Post, November 21, 2005.

The Herald-Mail in Hagerstown, Maryland, reported that it had received an e-mail claiming to be from Earth Liberation Front extremists claiming responsibility for a fire Sunday that destroyed recently built, unoccupied townhouses. The fire caused an estimated $225,000 in damages.

According to the Associated press, the e-mail sent to the newspaper read,

Last night we, the Earth Liberation Front, put the torch to a development of Ryan Homes in Hagerstown, Maryland (off of Route 40, behind the Wal-Mart). We did so to strike at the bottom line of this country’s most notorious serial land rapist. We warn all developers that the people of the Earth are prepared to defend what remains of the wild and the green. We encourage all who watch with sadness while developers sell out the future of us and our children to join us in resisting them in any and every possible way. The Ents are going to war.

The ELF claim has brought the FBI into the investigation of the arson.

This is apparently the first arson in Maryland claimed by the Earth Liberation Front.

Sources:

FBI Probes Claim That ELF Set Western Md. Fires. Associated Press, November 21, 2005.

Arson eyed in town house fires. Karen Hanna, The Herald-Mail (Hagerstown), November 21, 2005.

In the early morning hours of November 20, animal rights extremists broke into the kennels at the Essex and Suffolk hunt, releasing dozens of animals and setting a couple of fires.

When police arrived shortly after 1 a.m., they found 82 dogs and 5 horses and been released, and the gates to the kennel, which opens into the road, left wide open. Additionally, the extremists set a couple of fires and spray painted “hunt scum” on the road.

Gary Thorpe, huntsman for the Essex and Suffolk hunt, told the East Anglian Times,

We are appalled. They let all the hounds and horses out of their stables and left the gates wide open so they could get on the road. Thankfully this did not happen, but that was more by luck than anything else or they could have caused a serious accident. These people call themselves animal lovers, but what kind of animal lover does this. We are hunting completely within the law and they still persist in coming out and disrupting what we are doing. It is very worrying when they are prepared to set fire to something and release your animals in the middle of the night.

A spokesman from the UK’s Hunt Saboteurs Association said that no one from that organization was involved in the action,

I can say categorically no member of the HSA would take any action that would endanger the life of hunting hounds and horses. We care for their welfare.

There’s no evidence that anyone from the HSA was involved, but unless the HSA actually knows the identity of the attacker, this categorical denial is a bit silly (hint, next time just say your organization does not condone such irresponsible actions and leave it at that).

Source:

Saboteurs blamed for hunt attack. The BBC, November 20, 2005.

Fury as hunt kennels attacked. Helen Skene, East Anglian Daily Times, November 21, 2005.

Arson attack on hunt kennels. Anna Tyzack, Horse and Hound, November 21, 2005.

In October, police in Great Britain reported that Animal Liberation Front extremists mailed anonymous letters to dozens of construction and decorating companies warning them of dire consequences if they participated in Oxford University’s planned construction of a new research facility.

The letter warned companies that they would participate in the construction and design of the building “at your own peril.”

Animal Liberation Front spokesman Robin Webb approved of the letters, telling The Telegraph,

If they are supplying Oxford University in any way and through that helping the progress of the proposed facility then they can be considered a target.

Police had a different view. A police spokesman told The Press Association,

It is believed the letters are part of a campaign by animal rights extremists who are trying to prevent work by Oxford University to build new laboratories. Although everyone is entitled to an opinion about this very emotive issue, it is just not acceptable to act in a way which intimidates other people and threatens their livelihood.

Sources:

Animal rights group threatens builders over new Oxford labs. Rosie Murray-West, Telegraph, October 12, 2005.

Threats posted to Oxford lab contractors. Press Association, October 11, 2005.

On October 11, the National Marine Fisheries Service held its third public comment session in Seattle, Washington, to hear opinions about the request by the Makah tribe to once again begin harvesting small numbers of whales.

The Makah killed their first whale in 70 years in 1999, but subsequently the Ninth Circuit Court ruled it needed a formal exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The Makah have filed for such an exemption, and the NMFS has held public comment sessions as part of that process.

More than 100 people showed up for the session, most of the opposed to resumption of even small scale whaling. Animal rights activist Carol Janes, for example, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,

I travel a lot for my work, and it means something when I say I’m from Seattle. [People] know about Mount St. Helens and the Mariners. I don’t want that meaning to change to: ‘That’s the place where they kill whales.’

The Humane Society of the United States’ Kitty Block told the Seattle Times,

We are worried about the precedent this would set. This law has saved millions and millions of animal lives.

We don’t want to come across as anti-tribal. And I am not denying their treaty right. But what does this do to our marine-mammal protection? And it is not just conservation; it is a humane issue. There is no humane way to kill a whale.

. . .

We have developed relationships with these animals [through whale watching tours]. It’s like a bait-and-switch: We go out there to see them — I’ve seen footage where people are leaning over and touching them — and now they are leaning over with a harpoon. It breaks a trust relationship.

Makah and Native American activists appealed to their long history of hunting whales, and the treaty they signed with the U.S. government guaranteeing the tribe the right to hunt whales (the tribe voluntarily refrained from hunting whales for decades after commercial whale hunting caused a drastic decline in the number of whales).

David Sones, vice chairman of the Makah Tribal Council, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,

The animal rights groups would rather just see our culture disappear and that’s their right. But we really believe that we will get this waiver.

Bob Anderson, director of the Center for Native American Law at the University of Washington, noted that the current Makah predicament is a largely result of the tribe electing to work with federal officials in the mid-1990s instead of going its own way. Anderson told the Seattle Times

If they had gone out and just gone whaling, that would be allowed. By doing something they didn’t have to do, they triggered this federal action, and that resulted in the 9th Circuit ruling. Now the Makah are bound.

A final decision on the resumption of whaling by the Makah is likely years away, as once the National Marine Fisheries Service makes its decision on whether or not to grant a waiver that decision will be litigated for years regardless of which side the Fisheries Service comes down on.

Sources:

Hearing shows Makahs, public divided over whaling rights. Claudia Rowe, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 12, 2005.

Makah Tribe seeks federal waiver to let it once again hunt for whale. Lynda Mapes, Seattle Times, October 11, 2005.

Third Makah whaling hearing draws 120 in Seattle. Jim Casey, Peninsula Daily News, October 12, 2005.

British newspapers reported in early October on efforts by Kenyan medical research institutes to attract European drug firms who have had enough of runaway animal rights extremism on that continent.

Kenya’s Institute for Primate Research, for example, was established by Richard Leakey in the 1960s to further the study of primate evolution, and is now one of the leading research centers in Africa. It is actively promoting the advantages of doing animal research in Kenya where costs are cheaper and animal rights lacks the cache it has gained in parts of Europe.

Institute for Primate Research director Emmanuel Wango told The Telegraph,

We want to encourage and develop a closer relationship with companies from outside Kenya so they can come and see that we will be able to do their work without the problems they have elsewhere.

Our costs are almost a tenth of those in America and we have a much more comfortable way of working. We have everything you need to the same standards, but without these people trying to petrol-bomb your family.

Not that Kenya doesn’t have homegrown animal rights activists. Jean Gilcrhist of the Kenya Society for the Protection and Care of Animals bemoans the proposal,

We are not happy with this proposal. If animal experiments are to be done — and we believe that alternatives should be used when possible — then these should be very, very strictly controlled.

Sources:

Scientists offered animal research haven in Africa. Rob Crilly, The Scotsman, October 8, 2005.

Africa offers haven to drug firms plagued by animal rights activists. Mike Pflanz, The Telegraph, October 25, 2005.

Animal rights activists hit Vogue editor Anna Wintour with a tofu cream pie after she left a fashion show in Paris, France.

This is the second time this year that activists have hit Wintour with a pie, also hitting Wintour before a Chanel show in Paris.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was quick to condemn Wintour, with PETA’s Yvonne Taylor saying,

Wintour is fur-bearing animals’ worst enemy because her magazine continues to feature dozens of pages of pro-fur editorials and advertising every year. She takes big glossy advertisements for fur and she refuses to run any anti-fur ads, even paid ones, so she’s a big fur supporter.

Hmmm…I guess then it would be okay to throw things at Ingrid Newkirk because PETA does not accept pro-fur advertisements in any of its publications.

Source:

Anti-fur group cream pies American Vogue’s Wintour. Reuters, October 8, 2005.

Editor faces tofu fur fury. The Weekend Australian, October 10, 2005.

Heather Mills McCartney, Paul’s latest wife, ripped model Naomi Campbell for wearing fur. But in trying to highlight Campbell’s alleged depravity, McCartney simply revealed her own.

On an ITV television program, McCartney said of Campbell,

It would be a bit like me saying no more landmines, no more landmines, adn then doing a contract with a landmine company to promote a new landmine, that’s how superficial, shallow and hypocritical it is, as well as harming millions of animals.

But, of course, that is precisely what McCartney has done with her new association with PETA. She’s gone from saying “no more landmines, no more landmines” to hooking up with an organization whose members openly admire serial killers and support arson and other violent actions as legitimate tactics for their movement.

Then again, Linda McCartney supported PETA’s campaign against medical research while benefiting from the fruits of said research, so apparently an overarching hypocrisy is simply a prerequisite for wives of the former Beatle.

McCartney also claimed that Campbell has refused to meet with her, but a spokesman for Campbell issued a written statement saying,

Ms. Campbell has not been contacted by Heather Mills McCartney, is surprised by her remarks and declines to comment further.

Source:

McCartney’s wife flays model fur fan. Agence France-Presse, October 9, 2005.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is bankrolling a class-action lawsuit against the dairy industry demanding that milk carry labels warning consumers of the possible effects of lactose intolerance.

PCRM found 10 plaintiffs, including PCRM advisory board member Milton Mills, to join the suit claiming that they suffered various problems — including cramps and diarrhea — after consuming milk. The plaintiffs are all from the predominantly black city of Washington, D.C. (blacks are more likely to suffer from lactose intolerance as compared to whites).

Mills told the Associated Press,

Lactose intolerance is very prevalence in persons of color. As a physician I see people who are dealing with conditions related to their inability to digest lactose. They’re led to believe they need to include dairy for health benefits. That is not true.

Susan Ruland, vice president for communications at the International Dairy Foods Association, told the Associated Press,

It’s [the lawsuit] just another attempt on the part of an animal rights group to attack dairy and milk products. They’re trying a new strategy of suing people right and left. It’s unfortunate to see that when it has to do with an issue of nutrition.

PCRM’s lawsuit asks for up to $100,000 in damages to the 10 plaintiffs.

Source:

Lawsuit Seeks Warning Labels on Milk. Frederic Frommer, Associated Press, October 6, 2005.

Lawsuit targets dairy industry. Marguerite Higgins, The Washington times, October 6, 2005.

In interview with the Associated Press, animal rights extremist Peter Daniel Young said that although he faces up to two years in jail for breaking into fur farms, “I would do it all again.”

Young, 28, told the Associated Press,

As bad as it could get [in prison], it will never be as bad as it was for those mink. I would do it all over again.

. . .

If saving thousands of [mink] lives makes a terrorist, then I certainly embrace the label. I would have been just as fast to act if those cages had been filled with human beings.

Young is scheduled to be sentenced November 8.

Source:

Animal activist faces prison term. Todd Richmond, Associated Press, October 6, 2005.