tagged w/ Animal Liberation
-
Fur industry lies exposed: study shows released mink survive in the wild.
Laying to waste fur industry claims that liberated mink do not survive in the wild, a recent study published in April 2009 studies the survival rate of captive-bred mink when released. The study, done in partnership with Oxford University, tracked the survival of released mink over eight years. The study found that none of the released mink died directly due to lack of survival skills.
For years, anecdotal evidence and quotes from wildlife biologists supported the possibility of high survival rates for released mink. For example, ,view this article on a (now removed) blog post from a Utah woman finding a mink in her yard near the McMullin Fur Farm, 18 months after it was raided by the Animal Liberation Front.
The Mink Release Study
The study (viewed here), is titled “The survival of captive-born animals in restoration programmes – Case study of the endangered European mink Mustela lutreola“.
The study set out to answer the following questions:
1. What is the survival rate of released mink and how does it
change with time since release?
2. Do age, sex of an individual, and the conditions in which it is
kept prior to release, affect its subsequent survival in the wild?
3. What are causes of mortality?
A few of the factors which could mitigate the relevance of this study are:
*The study was done with endangered European mink, not the commonly farmed North American mink.
*The study did not specify how many generations the mink had been bred in captivity (though, as reprinted below, it concluded this was not relevant to survival).
Mink Release Study Highlights
*”There was no evidence that the number of generations for which the lineage of the released individuals had been bred in captivity had any effect on survival.”
*Released mink survived for “up to 39 months”
*”The main cause of death was other carnivores and raptors, although this broad categorization may conceal a diversity of fatal scenarios.”
*(Only)”…three deaths were caused by humans: one was shot, the second was hit by a car and the third was beaten to death when venturing into a farmyard.”
*A quarter of the released European mink died within the first ten days. Survival decreased by half in 38 days and then stabilized….Overall, we conclude that mink adapt to the wild c. 1–1.5 months after release.”
*No mink were found to have died (directly) due to lack of survival skills.
*”The results show that genetically managed, long-term breeding programs within the zoo community can be a source of individuals for re-introductions”.
The study includes graphs charting survival rates and more.
Fur Industry Lies
In the wake of mink liberations by the A.L.F., the fur industry’s stock-response, without exception, is that released mink will not survive in the wild. They are likely to have no comment on this recent study, which proves these soundbites to be false.
Conclusion
Now we have a study published in partnership with a major university, in a credible academic journal, proving what the Animal Liberation Front and critical thinkers have believed for years: farm-raised mink retain their wild instincts, and when released, reassimilate successfully into their native habitat.Fur industry lies exposed: study shows released mink survive in the wild.
Laying to... more
-
-
Two University of Utah biomedical laboratories use dogs and cats for its research, obtaining the animals from shelters. PETA has accused the University of cruelty.
Salt Lake City, Utah - Investigative journalism by the Salt Lake Tribune, following-up on allegations levelled by PETA against the University of Utah's Comparative Medicine Center and the Cardiovascular Research & Training Institute laboratories revealed the two laboratories had used 190 dogs and cats in 2009, all obtained from shelters. Researchers told the Tribune that the testing gave the shelter animals "a second chance at life," while records obtained by the Tribune revealed that the labs had killed 116 of the 190 strays last year. Only 74 animals survived the research process to be adopted out as pets.
Shelter officials claimed the dogs and cats were going to be euthanized before the University picked them up for testing. The news has generated a limited debate in Utah over the use of animals for research purposes. The issue is not new for the state, which might account for the media silence in Utah. The Tribune interviewed the Director of one shelter that has provided dogs and cats to the university. Tug Getting, who is with the North Utah Animal Shelter defended the university saying
"... I'm probably more of an advocate for what they do up there now than I was before. [Animals] have a zero percent chance of survival at my facility, so if they have a 1 percent chance of being adopted out there, that's 1 percent better than we have here."
PETA's operative worked undercover inside the University labs for 8 months, leading to the claims that the research inflicted the animals with invasive and painful procedures. The PETA operative also allegedly documented instances of animal cruelty and neglect in the laboratory. The story came to light after PETA filed two federal complaints against the University of Utah in November 2009. Findings on the federal investigation are expected later this spring.
The laboratories obtained the animals legally, exposing what PETA called a "gateway to hell" for shelter animals. Major Utah shelters refuse to provide animals to the laboratory, and the State of Utah has revised a 29 year old law that mandated shelters to provide unwanted pets to the university for laboratory research. Under the revisions, should they be passed, shelters will have the option of providing animals to the University for research.
The North Utah Valley Animal Shelter, does not have a policy posted as to how long it will keep animals in an attempt to find homes before disposing of the animals. State law requires shelters to hold impounded animals with licence tags for three to five days, after which the shelter is free to dispose of the animal however it wants -- through returning to an owner, adoption or euthanasia. An animal surrendered by an owner may be put down immediately.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, which broke the story, the other shelter that provided unwanted cats and dogs to the University last year was the Davis County Government Animal Shelter.
The University of Utah states
"Research at the University of Utah that utilizes animal models is conducted with the utmost care and concern about the research subjects. The university is in total compliance with all state and federal regulations that govern the use of animals in research. Additionally, the institution is accredited as an exemplary program by an outside and independent organization (Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International)."
A University of Utah researcher was targeted in 2007 by animal activists over his research using primates.
It is not known how many animals the University laboratories currently hold in their facilities, nor is it known what species they are using for testing. However, a 2008 research document from the University mentions testing on primates.
Animals have been used for testing of products as well as research, both medical and other, for a very long time, something organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, as well as more radical groups like PETA and the Animal Liberation Front, are still attempting to change.Two University of Utah biomedical laboratories use dogs and cats for its research,... more
-
-
Save yourself the trouble of claiming you only eat "free range" meat or milk. This stuff is happening everywhere and that is why every time an investigator goes in, this is what comes out. -AL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNFFRGz1Qs
A new Mercy For Animals investigation is pulling back the curtains on the largest dairy factory farm in New York State Willet Dairy in Locke.
In early 2009 an MFA undercover investigator worked at the mega-dairy, secretly documenting egregious acts of animal cruelty, including neglect, with a hidden camera.
Thankfully, compassionate consumers can choose to withdraw their support of these abusive industries by adopting a vegan diet.
Each time we eat we can choose kindness over cruelty. Visit ChooseVeg DOT com for dairy-free recipes.
Evidence gathered during the investigation reveals:
* Cows with bloody open wounds, prolapsed uteruses, pus-filled infections, and swollen joints, apparently left to suffer without veterinary care
* "Downed" cows those too sick or injured to even stand left to suffer for weeks before dying or being killed
* Workers hitting, kicking, punching, and electric-shocking cows and calves
* Calves having their horns burned off without painkillers, as a worker shoved his fingers into the calves' eyes to restrain them
* Calves having their tails cut off a painful practice condemned by the American Veterinary Medical Association as cruel and unnecessary
* Newborn calves forcibly dragged away from their mothers by their legs, causing emotional distress to both mother and calf
* Cows living in overcrowded sheds on manure-coated concrete flooring
* Workers injecting cows with a controversial bovine growth hormone, used to increase milk productionSave yourself the trouble of claiming you only eat "free range" meat or... more
-
-
Un documentario diviso in capitoli, sull’assoluta dipendenza dell’umanità dagli Animali ,usati come compagnia, come cibo, come vestiario, per l’intrattenimento e per la ricerca scientifica.
Il regista e produttore del documentario Shaun Monson, mette insieme una serie di immagini girate perlopiù con camere nascoste, che lasciano a bocca aperta per la violenza della quale è capace l’uomo nel suo rapporto con gli altri esseri che popolano il pianeta.
Come sottolineato dalla voce del narratore, l’attore Joaquin Phoenix, nominato dall’Academy Award per “Il Gladiatore”, il termine “essere umano” sembra inappropriato per coloro che appartengono ad una società in grado di elaborare tanto scientificamente, non solo la sottomissione della natura ai propri bisogni, ma lo sfruttamento delle altre specie, talvolta per fini del tutto inconsistenti.
Il film , disponibile in Dvd sul sito ad esso dedicato, ma facilmente reperibile in versione integrale sul web, in lingua originale con sottotitoli anche in italiano, invita esplicitamente lo spettatore a riscoprire il valore dell’empatia, ed è stato lo spunto per iniziare un acceso dibattito all’interno delle comunità ambientaliste e scientifiche.
La colonna sonora, intensa ed evocativa è di Moby, artista acclamato dalla critica e noto per le sue posizioni in merito.
Da non perdere
Questo è il link per vedere il completo documentario con sottotitoli in Italiano.
http://www.videosurf.com/video/earthlings-terrestri-sottotitoli-italiano-54773727
Buona visione.Un documentario diviso in capitoli, sull’assoluta dipendenza... more
-
-
albyom
-
added this
-
2 months ago
- |
-
Heroic behaviour among animals is far more common than previously thought, according to scientists.
Creatures including dolphins, monkeys, fruit bats and even ants are all capable of selflessly coming to the rescue of others, researchers found.
Dr Elise Nowbahari, from the University of Paris, said there is mounting evidence that willingness to go to the aid of others at personal risk is common in a range of species and far from a solely human trait.
Dolphins endanger themselves to rescue trapped dolphins, lifting an injured dolphin to the water's surface to help it breathe, she said.
Monkeys will drive away an attacker from a vulnerable female or infants and female fruit bats help other fruit bats in labour to ease the birth.
She also said that ants frequently help other ants from the same colony if they are caught in traps or by a predator – though their heroism does not extend to helping ants from other colonies whose actual cries for help are ignored.
One of the biggest internet hits is a film of buffalo fighting off lions that had attacked one of their young in the Kruger National Park in South Africa.
"We may be underestimating the extent of rescue behaviour in the wild," said Dr Nowbahari, whose work is published in the latest issue of Communicative and Integrative Biology.
"Reports of rescue behaviour in non-human animals are exceedingly rare but is far more common than thought."
She has drawn up a four-point model that could be applied to the behaviour of any creature, including humans, to identify heroic acts.
First, the individual being helped is in distress and unless it escapes on its own it will suffer severe physical harm.
Second, the rescuer places themselves in harm's way by helping.
Third, the rescuer's behaviour is suitable to the circumstances of the victim's distress.
And last, rescuing is not done for any inherent reward.
She said: "Human acts of heroism are often rewarded with medals and commendations, for example. But one needs to distinguish between the reward inherent in the rescuing someone and the reward that may or may not be given if the act is recognised."
Dr Nowbahari and her colleagues now intend to apply the four-point model to a range of non-human animal situations to determine if the rescuer's behaviour was indeed heroic.
By using this detached method she expects to be able to document an enormous range of animals being heroic.Heroic behaviour among animals is far more common than previously thought, according... more
-
-
Avatar earned $1 billion in two weeks, already making it the fourth-biggest-grossing movie to date. James Cameron said early on it would cost, and make, ridiculous amounts of money. He also said it has been a dream of his for more than a decade. According to industry groups and right wing pundits, though, the film really has a more sinister motive: recruiting “eco-terrorists.”
Avatar has a similar archetypal narrative to countless other sci-fi films. The Na’vi are an indigenous race on a far-off planet, Pandora. Humans want to mine Pandora. The Na’vi fight back. Give ‘em some fur, and it sounds a little Return of the Jedi-ish.
But the usual corporate cheerleaders have been warning audiences that Avatar is actually pushing a radical environmentalist message, because the Na’vi are, um, defending their utopian planet against complete annihilation.
Richard Swier’s column at Red County is a good example. He compares the Na’vi to the Earth Liberation Front, the FBI’s “number one domestic terrorism threat.” He warns:
"This movie justifies the use of force against companies dedicated to finding, mining and processing natural resources… AVATAR is the celebration of and a recruiting tool for ELF, ALF, Greenpeace and the Sierra Clubs around the world."
It would be kind of hilarious if I still had a sense of humor for all of this stuff. Unfortunately, this has happened many times before. One of my favorite examples is when a children’s movie, Hoot, was labeled “soft core eco-terrorism for kids.” The same thing happened with Charlotte’s Web.
It’s easy to dismiss these kinds of columns, but the underlying values that prompt them should not be ignored. A Hollywood sci-fi mega-blockbuster like Avatar can be viewed by some people as “eco-terrorism” because the core values held by the protagonists parallel the core values held by an increasing number of real people.
Over at Mother Nature Network, Avatar was described as “transforming the shrill cries of a tired activist movement into pure, gravity-defying magic.” Mainstream activists and publications can revel in the film, cheering on natives killing invaders, because it all safely takes place in a movie theatre. None of this has happened in real life; the ALF and ELF have never harmed a human being. If they did, these same green groups would undoubtedly be condemning them.
That’s really the take away-message of all of this. The radical environmental movement is a threat not because of its tactics, but because of its beliefs.
Swier makes that very clear:
"This is the final goal of eco-terrorists. Deny humans access to the natural resources on earth in order to save the planet. You see environmentalists truly believe that humans are an infestation upon the earth."Avatar earned $1 billion in two weeks, already making it the fourth-biggest-grossing... more
-
-
Some minor spoilers but not many ahead. Read at your own risk. Links embedded in original text at original link.
District 9 & Avatar: Missed Messages of Speciesism
This will make much more sense to those who have seen both District 9 and Avatar and have read many reviews about the messages of racism within the films. Some people decried the white, patriarchal tendencies of the (perhaps well intentioned) messages of racism and white guilt while others saw the films as important allegories of struggles. I am somewhere in between these feelings. I won't get into the racism messages of the films as I feel other critics have done a decent job. For instance, see this article: When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"?
However, there is one thing absent across almost all critiques that is amazing to me: these movies are about speciesism... and hardly anyone notices it. Speciesism is the main focus.
There is no doubt that the racism allegories are there, do not get me wrong. It is obvious that District 9 had much to say about South African apartheid and that Avatar had much to say about corporate and governmental colonization, exploitation, and murder of indigenous peoples. But, speciesism is the real core as the prawn-aliens and the n'avi are both separate species, not separate human races.
Do we think it's a coincidence that meat, cat food, and pig experiments were so blatant in District-9? Do we find it strange that the "bond" between animals, the respect for nature, the interconnectedness between all living things, etc was so focused on in Avatar?
Let's recognize the racial messages but not miss the speciesism messages that are even more obvious. The fact that few are realizing this is disconcerting. But, as some have said, animal liberation does seem to be "the longest struggle". Let's work to speed it up.
As a note, I enjoyed both of these films and saw them both more than once in the theater. I see the problems with them but also felt empowered by seeing these species rise up when they did and seeing these things being talked about. Sometimes, even if the film isn't a perfect allegory, it can start some really important conversations. Both District 9 and Avatar seem to be doing this and that at least is positive in my eyes.Some minor spoilers but not many ahead. Read at your own risk. Links embedded in... more
-
-
Rescuers: 1 Horse Died, 2nd Recovering
Rescuers said the two horses spent the last two months starving in a pen in reprehensible conditions.
MIAMI -- Two emaciated horses that were once thoroughbred racers at Calder Race Course were taken over the holiday weekend from a farm alleged to be an illegal slaughterhouse.
Karla Wolfson and Laurie Godecke spent their Christmas Day trying to save the lives of two thoroughbred racehorses. The two animal lovers drove to a farm in northwest Miami-Dade County after Godecke read an article in a newspaper about an increase in horse slaughter farms.
"I said, 'That's the filly and that's the gelding.' I knew exactly who they were because I have galloped them over and over and over," said Godecke, who was an assistant trainer at Calder.
Godecke had found a home for the gelding, who was named Dance Hall Graeme, two months ago, but it somehow fell through.
"He was going to a beautiful home with kids feeding him apples, petting him, loving him, and he had to end up like that and suffer and suffer. That's the part that killed my heart," Godecke said.
On Sunday, the animal was euthanized. The rescuers said Dance Hall Graeme was nothing but skin and bones, was bleeding through the nose and suffered from infections it could not survive.
"He is gone but maybe she can speak for him somehow. It was so horrible. I don't have the stomach for it," Wolfson said.
In a video shot by Animal Rescue Mission, Miami-Dade police can be seen at the farm on Dec. 18, BUT NO ACTION was taken to seize the horses.
"There was a picture taken of me with two extremely neglected and emaciated horses that ended up being from Calder Race Course," said Richard Couto, of Animal Rescue Mission.
Now, Wolfson and Godecke are focused on caring for the filly at a Southwest Ranches farm and also are trying to get racehorse owners to look after their horses when they are done racing so they do not end up like Dance Hall Graeme.
"These trainers and owners need to step up to the plate and find decent homes for these animals. You can't turn a blind eye to what is going on and say it's not your responsibility. These animals deserve better," Wolfson said.
The prognosis for the filly is good. The rescuers said she has to battle some infections and put on more weight.
Miami-Dade police said the lead detective on the task force that visited the farm on Dec. 18 was out of the office Monday and they could not find the incident report, so they could not comment on why the animals were not seized. {WTF?... that's the best EXCUSE for for being such disgraceful human beings?}
Representatives of Calder Race Course said they are opening their own investigation into how the two horses ended up in that situation.
http://www.justnews.com/news/22074851/detail.htmlRescuers: 1 Horse Died, 2nd Recovering
Rescuers said the two horses spent the last... more
-
-
Once again, something shown "safe and effective" in nonhuman animals has not worked in humans. Like most "breakthroughs" we hear about, it failed to help people. They also made sure to make Africa their testing ground. Thank goodness the results were not worse, as they often are, when faulty testing in animals is extrapolated to humans (which is why they often test things in other countries).
I wonder when we will stop looking to other animals who do not get HIV for a cure.
___________________________________
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA Dec 14 2009 10:21
New research has concluded that the vaginal microbicide gel, PRO 2000, does not prevent HIV infection in women, a study released on Monday said.
"The researchers agree that while the results mean the end of the road for PRO 2000 -- and the entire 'second generation' of microbicide formulations -- they are upbeat about next-generation microbicides, which are already in trials," a statement said.
The trial involved 9 385 women in East and Southern Africa, and though the gel was safe, it did not prevent infection.
"This was a large and important trial, and while it's disappointing that PRO 2000 did not show an effect against HIV infection, nonetheless the product was safe and the trial was well conducted," said Professor Helen Rees, executive director of the Reproductive Health and HIV Research Unit, one of the participants in the trial.
Microbicides are gels, foams or creams used to prevent the vaginal sexual transmission of the HI virus and other sexually transmitted infections when applied inside the vagina.
Other trials have also been disappointing and have been stopped, but researchers keep trying to find one that works properly, with trials using microbicides that contain antiretrovirals already under way.
The latest trial, known as "MDP 301", was conducted between September 2005 and September 2009.
Besides the centres in Africa, women were drawn from Managua in Zambia, Misika in Uganda and Kwanza in Tanzania.
In Misika, the trial population consisted of mostly HIV-discordant couples -- couples where one partner has the virus, and the other does not, and some concordant couples -- where both have the virus.
In Tanzania, women were recruited from high-risk groups whereas at all other centres, participants were women from the general communities.
The clinical trial tested the microbicide gels at two different doses for safety and their ability to prevent HIV infection against a placebo -- a gel with no activity against HIV.
The active gel tested was PRO 2000 in 0,5% and 2% doses, developed by Nevus Pharmaceuticals in the United States.
In earlier laboratory and animal testing, PRO 2000 had demonstrated a protective effect against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections by preventing HIV cell entry.
All participants underwent a comprehension test to assess their understanding of the trial prior to enrolment and throughout the study, and were given information about the risks.
All women in the study who became HIV positive were provided counselling and were referred for ongoing psychosocial care. Women were also invited to remain in contact with sites for long-term care and monitoring of their HIV infections, and referrals were made to local health service providers for ongoing care.
The researchers believe that in spite of the disappointing results, the trial provided an opportunity to deliver HIV-prevention education to thousands of women at risk of HIV.
They lauded the commitment of the women and said this spurs them on to continue with their work.
In sub-Saharan Africa, women represent nearly 60% of adults living with HIV, and in several Southern African countries, young women are at least three times more likely to be HIV-positive than young men.
The study was conducted by the HIV Prevention Research Unit of the South African Medical Research Council, the Reproductive Health and HIV Research Unit of the University of the Witwatersrand, and the Africa Centre for Health and Population Studies of the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
It was funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council and the UK Department for International Development. -- Sapa
Source: Mail & Guardian Online
Web Address: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-12-14-disappointing-results-for-microbicide-researchOnce again, something shown "safe and effective" in nonhuman animals has not... more
-
-
These guys are pretty good. Not sure how I feel about the animal exploitation aspect but they are certainly entertaining.These guys are pretty good. Not sure how I feel about the animal exploitation aspect... more
-
-
So many animals spared, and liberationists didn't have to do a thing. :-)
________
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/12/08/university-fearing-animal-rights-violence-axes-baboon-study/
Last week, seemingly out of nowhere, Oklahoma State University president Burns Hargis pulled the plug on a federally funded research project that would have tested anthrax vaccines on baboons, and euthanized the primates at the experiment’s end. This week more details are beginning to come out regarding why Hargis made his call. Basically, his office says, they didn’t want to deal with possibly violent animal rights protesters.
The plan was to expose the animals to the spores of the attenuated Sterne strain of anthrax and eventually advance to the Ames strain — the fully encapsulated and virulent form of the bacterium that was used in the anthrax attacks of 2001 — and observe the pathobiology of infection. It was part of a collaborative multi-institutional NIH grant originally awarded for $12 million in 2004, and renewed in September of this year for another $14.3 million [The Scientist]. Oklahoma State would have hosted only a small part of the research, and the university’s animal testing committee approved the project unanimously.
President Hargis gave few details when reports first surfaced that he’d taken it upon himself to ax the project. Yesterday Stephen McKeever, the vice president for research, tried to step in and explain. “The issue he was mostly concerned about was that he really did not want to attract controversy from the violent elements of various animal rights groups. He did not want to put OSU in that spotlight and so unnecessarily distract from or interfere with current research” [Science]. McKeever told Science that no one had specifically threatened OSU over the project, but that the university had never before hosted terminal primate research. He also issued the vague statement that the school “received confidential information, which it will not reveal in public, that made the president uncomfortable with this particular project” [New Scientist].
While animal rights organizations probably celebrated, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology balked (pdf). In a statement, the organization called OSU’s action disturbing, arguing that top-of-the-line labs like OSU’s that are capable of handling the safety and security issues inherent in anthrax testing need to be doing that critical research, not shunning it.
Not everyone bought the president’s explanation, either. Some faculty members have suggested that the decision to cancel the study might be linked to pressure from OSU benefactor T. Boone Pickens, whose wife Madeleine previously expressed disapproval of surgical training procedures involving animals in the university’s veterinary school. Spokespeople for both Pickens and the university deny the suggestion [Nature News]. Pickens has donated nearly $500 million to Oklahoma State in recent years, with more than half going to athletics. The Cowboys’ football field bears his name.
Oklahoma State’s faculty council meets this week to take up the issue, but veterinary scientist Richard Eberle suggested that the school had already lost credibility. “OSU is now seen by researchers at other institutions as an unreliable research partner and afraid of animal rights demonstrators,” Eberle said [The Oklahoman].So many animals spared, and liberationists didn't have to do a thing. :-)... more
-
-
Patrick O. Brown, a Stanford University biochemist, has changed science twice by giving stuff away. In the early 1990s Brown invented the DNA microarray, a tool that measures how cells make use of their DNA; he then showed researchers how to make their own, transforming genetic research. In 2000 he was one of three scientists who launched a free, online scientific journal called the Public Library of Science (PLOS); it has already broken the stranglehold of $200-a-year scientific publications like Science and Nature.
Now he is tackling an even bigger foe. Over the next 18 months Brown, 55, will take a break from his normal scientific work (finding out how a small number of genes are translated into a much larger number of proteins) in order to change the way the world farms and eats. He wants to put an end to animal farming, or at least put a significant dent in our global hunger for cows, pigs and chickens.
Brown, who has been a vegetarian for more than 30 years and a vegan for 5, notes that while livestock accounts for only 9% of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, it accounts for 37% of human-caused methane (most of it emanating from the animals' digestive systems) and 65% of human-caused nitrous oxide, according to the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Both are far better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, meaning that cows, chickens and their ilk have a larger greenhouse effect than all the cars, trucks and planes in the world.
The green cognoscenti are choosing animal husbandry as their new enemy. Jonathan Safran Foer, the bestselling novelist, has published articles declaring that he is raising his kids vegetarian because of the environmental consequences of meat farming and that if people are going to eat meat, they should consider eating dogs. Lord Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics, told the Independent that the West would have to become more vegetarian in order to combat global warming; without change in present trends, meat and milk output will double by 2050.
Brown brings scientific clout to the debate--he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences and an investigator for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute--and a realization that the arguments for change need to be economic, not just ethical. Growing crops to feed animals requires a lot more land, energy and fertilizer than growing them to feed people, he says: 70% of the land that was once Amazon rain forest is dedicated to grazing. Even if scientists figure out how to make milk with stem cells, it's unlikely they will be able to create milk with the same efficiency as they can corn or wheat.
"There's absolutely no possibility that 50 years from now this system will be operating as it does now," says Brown. "One approach is to just wait, and either we'll deal with it or we'll be toast. I want to approach this as a solvable problem." Solution: "Eliminate animal farming on planet Earth."
Diets are malleable. Thirty years ago nobody drank high fructose corn syrup. Now it's a dominant part of the American diet. As Western diets move into China, people there are eating more beef. Brown argues that the key to removing meat from diets is to give foodmakers an incentive to make yummy vegetable-based fare. If vendors push the new foods, palates will follow.
Incentive? Brown thinks if he can convince food manufacturers that the costs of selling meat are too high, and rising, they'll come around. Seemingly tiny changes in economics could make animal farming a lot less affordable....
[full article at link]Patrick O. Brown, a Stanford University biochemist, has changed science twice by... more
-
-
Humans are always so proud of their supposed intellectual superiority. Little do they know, they are being manipulated daily by their companion animals :-) Here's animal liberation on a lighter note for ya.
http://www.scifisquad.com/2009/11/19/science-proves-cats-are-evil/
(embedded links and sources in text at original link)
Science Proves Cats are Evil
Have you ever thought that your cat really is evil, and is actively manipulating you to do it's bidding?
Science says that it is. Dr Karen McComb of the Centre for Mammal Vocal Communication Research at the University of Sussex has proof.
A BBC News report spoke to Dr. McComb, who stated that it appears that cats "learn to dramatically exaggerate it when it proves effective in generating a response from humans." According to the same report, studies have found that a domestic cat's cries are similar to that of human babies, and that's a sound humans are highly sensitive to.
"The cry embedded within the purr" study was published in the journal Current Biology in July and claims that cats actually exploit humans into caring for them, especially when it comes to filling those food dishes. The abstract states that "even individuals with no experience of owning cats judged the 'solicitation' purrs to be more urgent. "
How long before someone synthesizes those sounds to control humans? I'd write more, but someone's dish is empty, and I feel compelled to fill it.Humans are always so proud of their supposed intellectual superiority. Little do they... more
-
-
Part 2
-
-
gooma2
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
A new undercover investigation inside a Land O'Lakes supplier facility in Pennsylvania has revealed routine neglect and cruelty to cows who are milked for the Fortune 250 company's products. Over the course of several months, the investigation documented deplorable, filthy conditions for cows on the farm, such as pens that were filled with deep excrement (see video and photos), and cows who suffered from ailments and conditions so severe that they collapsed and became "downers" but were not put out of their misery or given veterinary care in a timely manner, if at all.
Land O'Lakes "inspected" the farm as recently as June 2009 and even noted that there were areas in need of cleaning (including the milking parlor walls!) but approved the facility nonetheless.
Cows on dairy factory farms are not given much more than the numbered tag that is punched through their ears to identify them. Read more about what happened to a few of the cows who lived and died miserably at one such farm.
The farm's owner and one of his sons were caught on video electro-shocking cows who were in too much pain to stand up. One of the farmer's sons kicked a cow and jabbed her with the blade of a pocket knife. Both the father and son have now been charged with cruelty to animals.
The dairy industry's standard forms of cruelty also led to suffering for these cows. In order to make milking easier, cows' tails were amputated by tightly binding them with elastic bands, causing the skin and tissue to slowly die and slough off and leaving the animals unable to swat away flies, which, in addition to tormenting the cows, also led to the spread of disease. Tail-docking is unnecessary and cruel, which is why it has been condemned by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Dairy farmers don’t allow cows―whose pregnancies last for nine months, just like human pregnancies―to spend any significant time with their calves, who are taken from their mothers shortly after birth. Cows are intelligent animals who can remember things for a long time, and they have the capacity to worry about the future.
PETA's investigation also reveals cows and calves who were kept in pens and barns whose floors were covered with deep excrement, which caused foot and hoof problems and fostered the spread of disease. Calves rescued from the farm had pneumonia, "manure scald," ringworm, pinkeye, and parasites. Some cows suffered respiratory distress and had pus-filled nasal discharge streaming down their faces. Abscesses were common on the farm—some of them burst and oozed pus, even as cows were being milked, as can be seen in our video.
World-renowned meat and dairy industry expert Dr. Temple Grandin, after reviewing the footage, said, "The conditions are absolutely atrocious. ... It was obvious that the place was seldom cleaned and ... that many sick animals were not receiving veterinary treatment. ... The dairy manager totally NEGLECTED his animals. ... Many animals suffer greatly."
PETA is calling on Land O'Lakes to implement and enforce a 12-point animal welfare plan to govern all cooperative members' dairy-farming operations, which will eliminate some of the worst abuses to cows raised for their milk. Write to Land O'Lakes President Christopher Policinski now and urge him to implement the plan today. Of course, the best way for you to help prevent cows from suffering these abuses is to go vegan and stop consuming dairy products. Explore our "Vegetarian Starter Kit" for recipes and tips to get started today.A new undercover investigation inside a Land O'Lakes supplier facility in... more
-
-
[go to full link for the images and links because they won't be posted here]
One thing I hear from the anti-animal liberation movement (or those apathetic to it) is that the animal liberation movement is different from other movements because the animals don't come together to rise up against their exploiters. They also claim that the animal liberation movement is unlike that of other human animal struggles because x% of that struggle was the oppressed group (i.e. 50% of the population was women during the suffrage movement). Both of these misconceptions result from both speciesism and an effective campaign to demonize any retaliation from other animals against their captors.
A recent story inspired my entry on this topic: Russian Circus Bear Kills Manager
In short, a bear exploited, demeaned, and undoubtedly beaten into performing for humans on ice skates retaliated against his/her captors. The bear was shot on scene after giving fatal injuries to their exploiter.
In reading this story, others immediately came to mind. The horrid circus elephant attempt at escape in Honalulu. She made it out of the building, and through the gates, but then where was she to escape to? She was shot to death shortly after.
When performing monkeys banded together to attack their trainer in China, who had be imprisoning and beating them, their attack ended there. They were tied to the trainer by their necks and had nowhere to escape to. No one helped them.
When a mother cow attacked a farmer as he tried to steal her baby (as farmers do), she is labeled as "overprotective" as if there was something strange about her attempts to save her child. This cow was lucky enough not to be identified by the remaining farmers, but only at the cost of killing her captor and devastating his family.
These stories and many others beg the question: How are the animals to rise up against their exploiters (without our help) when every time they do they are met with weapons and immediate punishments of death? We do not speak their language nor they ours so no amount pleading will help (which they do do in their own forms of communication as they cry out from cages, scream in pain, and other noises which are ignored by their exploiters). Letter-writing and pleading doesn't even help us get things done within our own species.
The other point about x-amount of beings being part of a struggle begs the question: Why do only humans count in the percentage? The animals in the movement, while lacking in our weapons and technology, outnumber us. For this reason, their movement should be considered on level with our own as we are all animals. Also, in most other movements, it was NOT the oppressed group acting alone against the oppressor. The oppressed group almost always had allies from outside their demographic which helped make their revolutions a success. Could those suffering in the Holocaust have brought the Nazi war machine down on their own?
Before we judge the plight and worth of other species based on their ability to revolt, we must remember that the cruelty towards our fellow animals is so heinous that it can be compared to every single human struggle that has existed. Factory farms are concentration camps. Female farm animals serve as sex slaves and breeding machines. Animals in entertainment are slaves to their oppressors.
No one is free while others are oppressed.[go to full link for the images and links because they won't be posted here]... more
-
-
The Center for Constitutional Rights has a great new legal guide for activists called “If An Agent Knocks.”
From CCR:
Federal law enforcement agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have a dark history of targeting radical and progressive movements. Some of the dirty tricks they use against these movements include: the infiltration of organizations to discredit and disrupt their operations; campaigns of misinformation and false stories in the media; forgery of correspondence; fabrication of evidence; and the use of grand jury subpoenas to intimidate activists. Today’s activist must know and understand the threat posed by federal law enforcement agents and their tactics as well as several key security practices that offer the best protection.
Federal agents have many tools at their disposal to target activists. While it is important to know and understand these tools and tactics, it is of critical importance that you resist any paranoia of government surveillance or fear of infiltration, which will only serve to paralyze you or your organization in your quest for social change. If fear of government repression prevents you from organizing, the agents of repression will have won without even trying.
I think it is worth noting that in the recent appellate ruling in the SHAC 7 case, the court argued that educational materials on the SHAC website were relevant to the “terrorism” charges against them. Specifically, the court noted that the SHAC website had “a series of links dedicated to educating activists on how to evade investigators. These links were entitled, ‘Ears and Eyes Everywhere,’ ‘Dealing with Interrogation,’ ‘When an Agent Knocks,’ and ‘Illegal Activity.’”
Clearly, knowing your rights is perceived as a dangerous, dangerous thing. So get to it.
Thanks to Matthew for the link, and the excellent work on this publication.The Center for Constitutional Rights has a great new legal guide for activists called... more
-
-
The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism” charges for publishing a website and vocally, unapologetically supporting direct action–has been upheld by a U.S. appellate court. It is a landmark free speech ruling that lowers the threshold of what types of conduct are protected by the First Amendment, and upholds a law that is so broad that it targets civil disobedience as “terrorism.”
As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses of individuals connected to the corporations targeted.
The ruling was issued today and, although there are many aspects that deserve attention, I want to walk through what I think are by far the most dangerous and troubling implications of this ruling–those related to the First Amendment:
[PDF of the SHAC appeal ruling]
Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not protected speech.
As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about “electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.
Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold. In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless action.
To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience, explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to take part is not protected speech.
This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the civil disobedience.
This has dangerous implications far beyond this case. For instance, I wrote about the recent call by mainstream environmental groups for massive non-violent civil disobedience in defense of the environment. Under this reasoning, organizers of that event who published a website aren’t protected by the First Amendment.
[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by the headline and preceding points.]
Fiery rhetoric is a “true threat” when illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.
Another measurement of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment is whether it is a true threat. Throughout the appellate court ruling, the court argued that SHAC’s speech did, in fact, constitute a true threat.... full article at link........The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with... more
-
-
The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4, Bob Bloom. The letter captures both the absurdity of the charges, and the significance of the case for the animals and all of us. For a blunt and succinct explanation of how far the FBI is willing to go to crush the more effective tactics employed by the animal liberation movement, read on.
-Peter Young
A new client of mine, a young man named Joseph Buddenberg, is one of four principled, dedicated, and non-violent animal rights activists who have been indicted in federal court in San Jose, California under a new federal statute that was intended by Congress to target unlawful and violent conduct.
The statute, effective as of 2008, is known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), and each of the four defendants is facing five years or more in federal prison because they are alleged to have engaged in, literally, picketing at the homes of researchers they believe cause laboratory animals to be subjected to inhumane experimentation that causes suffering, pain, and death.
Congress was cautioned that the statute would be subject to overreaching by the FBI and by prosecutors. Predictably, this case that targets non-violent and non-criminal speech is the very first prosecution the government has chosen to initiate under this new statute. (The statute can be found by Googling 18 U.S.C. 43).
I do not understate or attempt to mis-state the allegations against the defendants. One of the documents I enclose is an affidavit sworn to by the FBI agent in charge of this case. The affidavit sets forth the worst of what the FBI claims the defendants did (in fact, the affidavit mis-states the facts as to one event). As you will see from reading the affidavit, the defendants are accused of identifying and locating animal researchers and then loudly picketing on the sidewalks in front of their homes. The intent was, and is, to stop the torture and other mistreatment of animals by speaking out in a non-violent manner to shame the researchers by exposing them and their conduct to their neighbors.
This kind of activity, speaking out to expose wrongdoers, is the very essence of the First Amendment. But the offending research laboratory, the University of California, is politically very powerful, and it has apparently lobbied federal law enforcement officials to bring this prosecution. The right of non-violent activists working to protect animals is under threat, and the First Amendment rights of all of us are threatened by this prosecution as well, as the animals suffer and die painful deaths every day.
The defendants are all good people, and courageous people. I have come to know Joe, and I can tell you that he cares deeply about protecting innocent creatures and putting an end to the mistreatment and the suffering. He is not a violent person, and he is not a criminal. And he certainly is not a terrorist.
Many animal lovers and civil libertarians believe that this is an extremely important case for a number of reasons. I have been engaged in civil rights law for more than forty years, and I am truly offended by, and worried by, this prosecution. Needless to say, it impacts the four defendants, but it also imperils the rights of all of us, as well as the lab animals who are being subjected to horrific mistreatment.
The case is complex and labor-intensive. It involves a maze of legal questions regarding the constitutionality of the statute, the validity of search warrants, potential issues regarding wiretapping, and other challenging issues, including the intricacies of the law of conspiracy (one of the two counts in the indictment). The facts of the case are also complicated, encompassing some fourteen incidents in at least three counties, and there are literally dozens of witnesses for whom we must prepare............The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4,... more
-
-
BOSTON, Sept. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A recent study documents the severe emotional trauma chimpanzees suffer as a result of laboratory use and confinement. Developmental Context Effects on Bicultural Post-Trauma Self Repair in Chimpanzees was published in the September issue, Vol. 45 (5), of the American Psychological Association journal Developmental Psychology.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090909/DC72238)
Psychologists G.A. Bradshaw, Ph.D., Ph.D., Theodora Capaldo, Ed.D., Lorin Lindner, Ph.D., and Gloria Grow, Fauna sanctuary director, examined the case histories of three chimpanzees -- Billy Jo, Tom, and Regis -- all used in research before rescue into sanctuary. The study underscores the ethical implications of cross-fostering nonhuman primates and their use in research.
Says Dr. Capaldo, president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS): "A federal bill to end the use of chimpanzees in research (the Great Ape Protection Act, H.R. 1326) has been introduced. Studies like ours expose the reality of what it is like for approximately 1000 chimpanzees languishing in U.S. labs. Chimpanzee research must stop if we are to end the suffering caused by decisions -- both scientifically flawed and ethically unjustifiable -- to use them as living test tubes."
Billy Jo lived like a human child from infancy to his teenage years when he was sent to a lab. He spent his next fourteen years alone in a 5'X5'X7' cage, enduring hundreds of procedures. He was rescued into sanctuary at age 29 and died only 8 years later.
Tom's family was killed in Africa in order to capture him. He spent decades in three different labs undergoing multiple procedures including 369 "knockdowns" -- anesthesia by dart gun. Every morning, Tom gags uncontrollably -- the result of repeated intubations.
Regis, born in a lab, was only 2 years old when he was treated for his first stress-related injury -- he had chewed his finger nail completely off. Regis, fearful if left alone, suffers severe anxiety attacks in which he nearly stops breathing.
The chimpanzees' symptoms are consistent with traumatic stress, depression, and other psychological conditions. Post-Trauma Self Repair in Chimpanzees follows Building an Inner Sanctuary: Complex PTSD in Chimpanzees (published April 2008 in the Journal of Trauma and Dissociation), which represented the first time human psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses were applied to chimpanzees, demonstrating that psychological suffering crosses species lines. Together, the papers provide irrefutable arguments to the growing ethical imperative to end the use of chimpanzees in U.S. research.
SOURCE New England Anti-Vivisection SocietyBOSTON, Sept. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A recent study documents the severe... more
-
