tagged w/ Animal Rights - Not Welfare
-
Daniel Guss: Didn't the Ed Boks fiasco teach the mayor anything?
By Daniel Guss
Daniel Guss is a writer and animal rescuer in Sherman Oaks.
Updated: 03/31/2010 09:49:08 PM PDT
Author John Powell famously said that the only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.
As we approach the one year anniversary of the resignation of Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks in April, it doesn't appear that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has learned much from his huge mistake. He hired a high profile animal shelter general manager without consulting the stakeholders, namely rescuers, shelter personnel and nationally recognized leaders in progressive animal welfare.
Five years ago, the Mayor's Office invited dozens of rescuers and advocates to the palatial home of Kathy Riordan, the long-serving Animal Services Commissioner and daughter of Richard Riordan. Unfortunately, the gathering was not to discuss who would replace the previous general manager, Guerdon Stuckey. It was just to introduce us to his successor Ed Boks, whom the mayor already hired without the benefit of public input.
That errant decision brought Los Angeles havoc in spades. Some of the highlights of Boks' tenure included the canceling of critical spay/neuter programs, unopened shelters and clinics, the uproar over the "Hooters for Neuters," the six-figure settlement of a sexual harassment case, and sundry other folly.
And, of course, immense and needless suffering and killing of animals.
With Boks now gone for nearly a year, the mayor's only communication with animal advocate stakeholders was a poorly constructed survey distributed by
CityGate Associates, the mayor's consultant for the current general manager search. Villaraigosa, who has shown this same disdain for his own Animal Services Commission appointees and shelter personnel alike, has also failed to consult the nation's leading experts on progressive animal welfare.
One must wonder why.
Some, including this rescuer, believe that the current general manager search is just for show. Villaraigosa, some suspect, is going to offer the job to one of the two assistant managers under Boks (both of whom were hired by Boks) despite their public declarations that they are not applying for the cushy, perk-laden, six-figure job.
Did Villaraigosa learn nothing from the Boks fiasco? He would do well to heed Powell's perspective now.
When James Hahn was mayor, he promised that Los Angeles would be a `no-kill' city, or one that doesn't do mass euthanasia of unwanted pets, by 2008 - a date many people felt at the time was projected needlessly far into the future. Still, it was forward-looking and something to shoot for.
In order to make that happen, though, Hahn needed (and Villaraigosa needs now) a progressive-minded shelter leader, recommended by those who are the nationally recognized leaders of progressive animal welfare. Among them are Nathan Winograd, Bonney Brown, Susanne Kogut, Rich Avanzino, Robin Starr, Brenda Barnette, Ledy Van Kavage, Abigail Smith and Mike Fry.
The problem is, Hahn didn't hire someone of this caliber when he was mayor. Villaraigosa didn't do it either and he appears to be primed to make the same mistake again, to everyone's and every animals' detriment.
Villaraigosa should not only consult with these leaders, he should actively try to recruit one of them to take the job, and snatch victory from the jaws of another impending disaster in the city's Animal Services Department.
The nation's progressive animal advocate leaders are out there. If only Villaraigosa would ask for their help.
http://www.laanimalservices.com/flash/main_topleft_anilogo.gifDaniel Guss: Didn't the Ed Boks fiasco teach the mayor anything?
By Daniel... more
-
-
With populations continuing to decline, wildlife agencies issue a plan to designate critical habitat zones to protect the species. Such listing could affect offshore drilling and other activities.
By Bettina Boxall
March 10, 2010 | 9:51 p.m.
Federal agencies are proposing to increase protections for loggerhead turtles, the long-lived sea creatures known for their big heads and capacity to swim thousands of miles across the Pacific.
The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a rule Wednesday that would list seven distinct loggerhead populations, including two in the Pacific, as endangered.
Since loggerheads were listed as threatened in 1978 under the Endangered Species Act, they have continued to decline. Wildlife agencies say the primary cause is incidental capture in fishing nets and long lines. But the turtles also have lost beach nesting habitat.
"More needed to be done to protect this species," said Andrea Treece, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which along with other environmental groups petitioned the government to change the listing for North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic loggerhead populations.
Endangered status would trigger designation of critical habitat zones for the two populations found in the U.S., prompting protections that could affect future offshore oil drilling and other activities.
But marine agencies concede that U.S. regulations alone will not save loggerheads, which live globally in the temperate and tropical zones of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans and Mediterranean Sea.
Loggerhead nests in the U.S. are found along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, from southern Virginia through Alabama. The North Pacific population hatches on the Japanese coast and some juveniles migrate to within a couple of hundred miles of California, where they feed in open waters.
Loggerheads are thought to live up to 100 years. They grow to about 3 feet long and can weigh more than 200 pounds. Their big heads give them the strength to crunch through the shells of crabs, snails and "anything they can get their mouth on," said Jeffrey Seminoff, a biologist with the fisheries agency.
U.S. fishermen in the North Pacific have gotten better at avoiding loggerheads with the help of the federal program, Seminoff said. It maps loggerhead locations based on their preferences for certain ocean temperatures.
"The real problem is those countries that are just not playing the conservation game," he added.
http://bajatortuga.com/images/loggerhead-sea-turtle.jpgWith populations continuing to decline, wildlife agencies issue a plan to designate... more
-
-
March 10, 4:59 PMMinneapolis Pets ExaminerMike Fry
PART ONE...
Myth: Noun - A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
Meme: Noun - A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another
Zeitgeist: Noun - The spirit of the time; the taste and outlook characteristic of a period or generation
In 2005 a grotesque news story broke about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Two employees for the national animal rights group were charged with 31 counts each of felony animal cruelty after authorities found the bodies of 18 animals just “rescued” by PETA in a dumpster. Thirteen more dead animals were found in a “euthanasia van” registered to the organization.
As this disturbing story unfolded, more shocking information came to light: the animals killed by PETA staff were generally healthy and some were in no danger at the time they were killed. One group of animals, a mother cat and her kittens, were turned over to PETA by a veterinary clinic where they were available for adoption. The felines were healthy and well cared for by all accounts.
To get the vet clinic to release the cats PETA told the veterinary staff they planned to find homes for the felines. However, the kitties were killed in one of PETA’s mobile euthanasia vans moments later -- right there in the parking lot. The bodies of the cats were some of those found in dumpsters.
More shocking still: this was apparently not an isolated case of fringe employees going off-script. USDA documents were uncovered showing that PETA consistently kills between 88% and 97% of the animals it “rescues” each year.
When all was said and done cruelty charges against the PETA employees were dropped. Because they used lethal injection to kill the critters, and because lethal injection is classified as an appropriate means to dispatch unwanted pets, prosecutors could not make cruelty charges stick. Ultimately, the only convictions that resulted from this case were trespassing and illegal disposal of animal carcasses in dumpsters.
Rather than distancing themselves from the horrendous acts of these employees PETA called the deaths compassionate and necessary. PETA blamed the deaths of these animals on “pet overpopulation,” a national tragedy that many animal welfare advocates say results in deaths of about 4 million healthy dogs and cats in animal shelters every year.
“Pet overpopulation” is a phrase repeated with much regularity by those who work and volunteer in animal shelters and rescue groups, so much so that the notion that there are too many animals and not enough homes has generally not been questioned. The single piece of data used to define the problem has been the numbers of animals killed in shelters. Rarely has the question been asked, “what if these deaths are caused by something else?”
Recently data from a variety of sources has begun pointing to the fact that deaths in animal shelters are not due to a problem of animal overpopulation. The data suggests the actual problem may be more insidious.
The most compelling data suggesting that pet overpopulation is a myth comes out of a study jointly commissioned by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Maddie’s Fund and the Ad Council. The study concluded that every year about 21 million families bring a new dog or cat into their homes. To put that number into perspective, the total number of dogs and cats that enter animal shelters is around 8 million.
Because not all animals that enter animal shelters need new homes - some need to be reunited with their families and a small percentage (around 7%) need to be humanely euthanized due to terminal illness or severe behavior problems - the actual number of animals entering shelters that need new homes each year is estimated to be between 4 million and 5 million. In other words, there are about four times as many homes looking to acquire a new dog or cat than there are dogs and cats needing new homes.
CONTINUED...March 10, 4:59 PMMinneapolis Pets ExaminerMike Fry
PART ONE...
Myth: Noun - A... more
-
-
Barbara Stowe is the daughter of Irving and Dorothy Stowe, two of Greenpeace's founders and most dedicated activists. When she heard the news that the Obama Administration was considering supporting a proposal to reintroduce commercial whaling, she took action here on the GPUSA site and wrote the following letter to the President. I found it inspiring, and thought you might, too.
Barbara Stowe is the daughter of Irving and Dorothy Stowe, two of Greenpeace's founders and most dedicated activists. When she heard the news that the Obama Administration was considering supporting a proposal to reintroduce commercial whaling, she took action here on the GPUSA site and wrote the following letter to the President. I found it inspiring, and thought you might, too.
My parents were among the main founders of Greenpeace. Our house was the organization's (only) office during the first five years of its existence. My mother, at 89, still serves at times as a kind of social ambassador for Greenpeace, and my brother and I serve with her. My late father, a fervent activist who also worked pro bono for the NAACP, among other causes, unfortunately did not live to see this new millenium, but I know he would have held the highest hopes for your administration. I hope you will see fit to do all in your power to save the whales...
_____________________________
SAY NO TO WHALING!
Barbara is one of over 30,000 activists who have sent a message to the president. You can take action too and tell President Obama to say NO to commercial whaling.
TAKE ACTION!
https://secure3.convio.net/gpeace/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=624&s_src=gpblogBarbara Stowe is the daughter of Irving and Dorothy Stowe, two of Greenpeace's... more
-
-
Adopting a vegetarian diet based around meat substitutes such as tofu can cause more damage to the environment, according to a new study
It has often been claimed that avoiding red meat is beneficial to the environment, because it lowers emissions and less land is used to produce alternatives.
But a study by Cranfield University, commissioned by WWF, the environmental group, found a substantial number of meat substitutes – such as soy, chickpeas and lentils – were more harmful to the environment because they were imported into Britain from overseas.
The study concluded: "A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK."
The results showed that the amount of foreign land required to produce the substitute products – and the potential destruction of forests to make way for farmland – outweighed the negatives of rearing beef and lamb in the UK.
An increase in vegetarianism could result in the collapse of British farming, the study warned, causing meat production to move overseas where there may be less legal protection of forests and uncultivated land.
Meat substitutes were also found to be highly processed, often requiring large amounts of energy to produce. The study recognised that the environmental merits of vegetarianism depended largely on which types of foods were consumed as an alternative to meat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7219223/Becoming-vegetarian-can-harm-the-environment.htmlAdopting a vegetarian diet based around meat substitutes such as tofu can cause more... more
-
-
-
A zoo in China is facing criticism for allowing visitors to participate in an unlikely form of entertainment: They can pay to see tigers feed on a live animal.
The incredible moment at Siberian Tiger Park in Harbin, China was captured by a tourist who said visitors can choose from a menu what they’d like to see the ferocious beasts eat. He witnessed chickens served as appetizers to the tigers (at a cost of $5.50), followed by a live cow (at a cost of $205)–dumped from a truck–and pounced on immediately. “It was dragged to the ground within seconds,” he told The Sun. And tourists relished in the attraction–taking photos and watching with binoculars from a bus nearby.
http://www.tabloidprodigy.com/?p=10233A zoo in China is facing criticism for allowing visitors to participate in an unlikely... more
-
-
-
1. Eating a hamburger a day could increase a person's risk of dying by a third from cancer, heart disease, stroke and the list goes on.
This conclusion comes from the Meat Intake and Mortality study, a prospective (meaning in real time) study that looked at data from over half a million people in a ten-year period between 1995 and 2005. Men eating more than 4.8 ounces of red meat a day had a 30% increased risk of mortality over ten years compared to men eating just .7 ounces; women that ate 4.6 ounces had a 36% increased risk compared to women who ate just .6 ounces. Here's a good summary of the study...what do you think?
2. Billions of extra health care spending can be attributed to our meat eating lifestyles.
This study was from 1992 and published in a 1995 issue of Preventive Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Health Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to research on preventive health measures. The researchers estimated the health costs of the nation's current omnivorous diet at $28.6 billion to $61.4 billion a year. This study was controversial, as the physicians that did the study are members of Physicians Committee for Responsbile Medicine, advocates of vegetarianism, and because it was an analysis - so they didn't totally control for all the other factors that may have attributed to subjects' higher medical costs besides meat eating. New York Times article is here. The figures are in 1992 dollars and would be higher today...but does the conclusion hold?
3. Eating meat spews more emissions than our cars, trains, and planes combined.
Seems fairly straightforward. Livestock emissions outweigh emissions from the entire transport sector. That's what the well-know UN study from 2004 concluded. While livestock's share of the carbon emission pie may be disputed a few percentage points back and forth, is there anyone that doubts they are ahead of transport?
4. Pound for pound beef production uses at least 100 times the water of say, lettuce.
We've reported on some of the water footprint figures from WaterFootprint.org, and that represent gallons of water per pound of food. Beef is a big one, that seem clear, but even WaterFootprint says that water used in beef production varies so widely that a range of figures is more accurate. Any iron-clad figures about average water involved in beef production that contradict this?
5. And, beef production emits nearly 100 times more greenhouse gas emissions than growing veggies.
Beef seems to be a climate bomb. In the figures from this report, attributed to Gidon Eshel, the total amount of CO2 associated with a calorie of beef would be 13.82,while the CO2 associated with a calorie of "veggies" would be .14 grams - nearly 100 times more. These figures aren't replicated in other data, however, which may make them suspect. Other figures from the Appropedia web site, originating from the Sopris Foundation, find only a factor of twenty difference in CO2 emissions between beef and veggies. Who is closer?
6. Meat and livestock cause twice the pollution of all industry combined.
This may be too much of a blanket statement...or maybe not. Jeremy Rivkin in Beyond Beef and David Pimental seem to be the two authors gathering the most data on livestock industry pollution, painting a picture of environmental devastation. What do you think?1. Eating a hamburger a day could increase a person's risk of dying by a third... more
-
-
Wolves should be reintroduced in U.S. national parks to help restore damaged ecosystems, according to a new report.
Researchers writing in the February issue of "BioScience" propose reintroducing small, managed populations in an effort to improve the biodiversity of many natural areas in North America.
These areas, say the authors led by Daniel Licht of the U.S. National Park Service, have been environmentally-impacted by population growth of hoofed mammals, for example elks and deer, which have prospered in the absence of "top-level" natural predators.
More wolves, they argue, would result in fewer hoofed mammals which in turn would lead to greater plant biomass and diversity.
A number of recent studies are cited to back up the report's proposal.
According to a 2004 study of south western Montana by W.J. Ripple and R.L. Beschta, wolves influence the distribution and behavior of elks by reducing the amount of time they spend foraging in woody vegetation.
Furthermore, wolf populations have been found to provide recreational and economic benefits. A 2006 study reported that wolves in Yellowstone National Park increased visitor numbers and expanded ecotourism spending by $35 million in 2005.
Wolf populations, say the report, should be small, non self-sustaining and be introduced for the sole purpose of restoring ecosystems where adequate numbers of prey already exist and where contact with humans can be managed.
Many of the public's fears about wolf attacks, not only on humans but on livestock, game and pets could be allayed, say the authors, by tagging and tracking them using global positioning system technology.
According to the authors, it's not the first time wolves have been employed environmentally.
In 1960, four wolves were reintroduced to Coronation Island in the state of Alaska to control the deer population. Although the plan was successful, their numbers weren't managed and the population soon increased to 13 before eventually crashing.
Today, public concerns over small populations growing unchecked could also be addressed by surgery or contraception say the authors, although they concede that these solutions remain ethically and environmentally contentious.
The authors also propose the use of barriers, both real and virtual (where collared animals receive an electric shock when approaching a buried wire) to act as a further safeguard to populations running out of control.
"Variations of it [wolf conservation] are regularly and successfully used throughout the world with large predators such as lions and African wild dogs," the authors conclude, but they admit there will be problems convincing many Americans -- who view the wolf as potent symbol of wilderness -- that these changes are desirable.
"The wolf is a passion-inspiring symbol to many people, but the symbolism varies and is polarizing. Restoring and managing the animal under our proposed paradigm appears doable; managing the symbolism remains the challenge."Wolves should be reintroduced in U.S. national parks to help restore damaged... more
-
-
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has a black goat slaughtered at his house almost every day to ward off "evil eyes" and protect him from "black magic," a newspaper reported Wednesday.
A spokesman for the president told the Dawn newspaper the goats were slaughtered as an act of Sadaqah -- meaning "voluntary charity" in Islam whereby one gives out money or the meat of a slaughtered animal to the poor to win Allah's blessing and stave off misfortune.
"It has been an old practice of Mr Zardari to offer Sadaqah. He has been doing this for a long time," the spokesman, Farhatullah Babar, told the paper.
Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim country where many of the well-off offer Sadaqah. Though Muslim, many people also follow certain superstitious practices.
Hundreds of goats had been sacrificed at Zardari's house since he was sworn in September 2008, the Dawn newspaper reported.
It said Zardari's detractors would see in his "new-found religiosity" a sign of nervousness in the face of growing woes.
Zardari, who rose to power after the assassination of his wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, in late 2007, has become increasingly unpopular and faces a range of problems from Islamist militancy to a stagnant economy and political rivalry.
A Supreme Court ruling last month throwing out an amnesty for Zardari, several top aides and thousands of political activists and government figures triggered a political storm and expectation that Zardari was on his way out.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60Q48S20100127?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r3:c0.122340:b30083938:z0ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has a black goat... more
-
-
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.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 productionA new Mercy For Animals investigation is pulling back the curtains on the largest... more
-
-
Too bad the cartoon itself is so lame, but the message is very, VERY strong.
This girl, "Braceface," visits a meat-packing plant!
Part OneToo bad the cartoon itself is so lame, but the message is very, VERY strong.
This... more
-
-
According to USA today, in a survey of 3,000 adults, 24% of people adopt an animal from a shelter and 31% think it is too expensive to get their pet fixed. 34% believe the the pet is too young and 24% just haven't gotten around to it.According to USA today, in a survey of 3,000 adults, 24% of people adopt an animal... more
-
-
¿Qué es la Gastronomía Vegana?
Se excluyen los ingredientes de origen animal: carnes de todo tipo, lácteos, huevos, gelatinas, miel. Es una gastronomía diseñada en base al respeto por la vida de todas las especies, sana y exquisita, para quienes eligen una alimentación inteligente. A disfrutarla!
Ver todo mi perfil¿Qué es la Gastronomía Vegana?
Se excluyen los... more
-
