Compassion is Common Sense: Debunking the Propaganda of Cruelty

Beijing News: Let us respect animal rights

2005-12-14T10:53:00.000-08:00

Here is a bit of good news from China, for a change. The official news agency has published an editorial on the need for China to become more compassionate in regards to animal rights.

Of course, these are only words in the right direction and, if the PRC is as committed to animal rights as much as they are to human rights, we still have very far to go. But, for what it's worth, these are still very encouraging words out of Beijing.

Let us respect animal rights

(excerpt)
Respecting animals should be part of the civilized conduct of modern human beings. This value should reflect mankind's respect not only for human rights, but also for the rights of lower animals.

What the country should do is to try to raise awareness not only in a moral sense, but through working out a set of laws and regulations aimed at the protection of animals and their welfare, to stop human cruelty.

We should bear in mind that protecting animals and respecting their lives is essential for humankind.

PETA: Whatever it takes (Alternet article nails gets it right)

2005-12-11T09:52:00.000-08:00

Alternet posted an article ("PETA: Whatever it takes") back in October that is quite timeless in its discussion of PETA's tactics. It deserves a thorough reading but here are two paragraphs that serve as a bit of thesis.

PETA does have an activist bent in addition to its propaganda arm -- real people doing real things to stop the suffering of specific animals -- and it has a record of winning in that regard. But because of the fight it's up against -- the ubiquity of animal consumption across America -- this thing can only be tackled in degrees by exposure to propaganda about it.

Here's the other thing: [b]PETA doesn't care about its general reputation.[/b] PETA is just a vehicle for the animal rights movement, and the staff is fully aware of this, so there's no such thing as bad press, and there's absolute indifference to folks who don't like the group's tactics. Anything at all that gets PETA in the headlines is a win for the animals. (emphasis added)

It is a wonderful strategy to get the message out but their ruthless strategy and indifferent attitude towards their general reputation makes it harder for us, the foot soldiers who are on "on the ground." To extend the military analogy, we (the grassroots activists) are like Civil Affairs officers whose job it is to win over the locals after PETA's "shock and awe." But it is exactly PETA's blowhorn that has infected the brains of so many with the seeds of compassion and it is because of PETA's blowhorn that we rallied around the flag of animal rights.

Now, if PETA was the only animal rights organization, we'd be in trouble. Just as if an invading army only consisted of battle tanks, it would be in trouble. You don't go out collecting signatures for an animal welfare ballot initiative with a PETA t-shirt on and when a potential signatory asks you "This isn't PETA doing this, is it?" You can truthfully reassure them, "Oh, PETA doesn't have anything to do with this." And then they sign.

Headlines of the past 24 hours

2005-12-09T21:30:00.000-08:00

Results for "animal rights:" Google News: 2,860; Google Web: 6,710,000

Judge Sanctions Ringling Bros. Circus Owner.

FAIRFAX, Va. — A judge issued sanctions against the owner of Ringling Bros. circus for filing late and incomplete documents in a lawsuit that claims that the owner had established a spy operation against animal-rights groups.

The judge on Thursday also ordered Kenneth Feld, chief executive and president of privately held Feld Entertainment Inc., to disclose his net worth and his most recent tax returns to PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Major Break in PETA lawsuit against Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

In a major break in PETA’s lawsuits against Kenneth Feld, the CEO and president of Feld Entertainment, Inc., the parent company of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, and coconspirators, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia) has entered a judgment against Steven Kendall, a top Feld operative. The lawsuits filed by PETA seek to uncover the depth and details of Feld’s alleged long-running conspiracy codirected by former CIA Covert Operations Director Clair George to infiltrate PETA in an attempt to halt opposition to Ringling’s abusive elephant training methods, use of the metal bullhook, separation of mother elephants from their babies, and other acts of cruelty to animals used by the circus. Kendall, of Pittsburgh, has admitted in public documents to PETA’s allegations against both himself and Feld, including theft and an extensive conspiracy to discredit the animal rights group.

Seal hunt protesters lose legal challenge

GEORGETOWN, P.E.I. — Animal rights activists have lost a legal challenge of Ottawa's right to restrict their movement during seal hunts.

Judge Nancy Orr ruled in provincial court Friday against a Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge launched by Paul Watson and 11 protesters from the Sea Shepherd Society.

The protesters filed their charter challenge after they were arrested in the Gulf of St. Lawrence last spring and charged with violating the buffer zone around sealing ships.

Heather Mills McCartney urges fur ban

Animal rights campaigner Heather Mills McCartney called on the European Union to ban the production and sale of cat and dog fur in Europe.

Mills McCartney, wife of Paul McCartney, revealed evidence Thursday that she said shows a thriving industry and trade in cat and dog skins, mainly in the Czech Republic, which joined the EU in 2004.

"Domestic cats are stolen off the streets in the Czech Republic and we're talking about 2,000 to 3,000 just in the Czech Republic, not in the whole of Europe," she told reporters.

"They skin them alive," Mills McCartney said, displaying a baby blanket sewn together with 20 cat skins.

Bear kills at 264 as hunt winds down

New Jersey hunters have bagged at least 264 black bears this week, with two days to go in the six-day hunt, according to figures released today.

On Thursday, 34 bears were killed. The previous days' kill: Monday, 136; Tuesday, 66; Wednesday, 28.<

Russian animal rights activists protest International Fur Auction in Petersburg

Animal-rights activists chained themselves to the Soyuzpushnina auction house in St. Petersburg Friday to protest a fur sale.

Two members of Russia's Alliance for Animal Rights, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with anti-fur slogans, spent half an hour chained to the building before security personnel broke the chains and took the protesters to the nearest police station.

Center for Consumer Freedom repeating lie that PETA insists Jesus was vegetarian

2005-12-08T00:14:00.000-08:00

The Center for Consumer Freedom keeps saying that PETA insists Jesus was a vegetarian. I don't know if the boys over at the CCF truly believe that PETA claims Jesus was vegetarian because they have a website called jesusveg.com or if they are maliciously repeating the myth in order to get people to accept it as fact.

IN order to debunk this myth of the CCF's, all one has to go is visit jesusveg.com and then click on the FAQ. First question: Do you believe Jesus was a vegetarian? The response:

There are a variety of books advancing the argument that Jesus was a vegetarian, as will be explained in a moment. However, whether Jesus was or wasn't a vegetarian, Christians today should be. For more on this argument, please read the question that begins, "I believe the Bible is literally true..." and the one beginning "I understand that many Christians embrace veganism..."

You have to give the researchers at the CCF a break on that one, folks. As you can see by how exhaustive my own investigative research was on that one, Finding the PETA's position on whether Jesus was a vegetarian required a lot of time and effor and deadend leads.

It makes me very happy when I see the CCF spending their corporate funding so foolishly on spreading these idiotic lies, but there are those who of course will believe.

Head of fur industry group: J Crew "didn't want headache"

2005-12-07T07:50:00.000-08:00

In another moronic pro-fur article in the "newspaper" Washington Times, the fur industry and its shills are trying desperately to spin the J.Crew suspension of fur sales as having nothing to do with the PETA boycott while at the same time saying that fur is "flying off the shelves."

"That's not the business J.Crew is in," Owen Blicksilver, a spokesman for the retailer says. "It's less than 1 percent of the product line. The decision was made a month ago."

I thought J Crew was in the business of selling clothing products for a profit but I guess not.

So if J. Crew took fur off of its shelves in the first days of the holiday shopping season when fur products are "flying off the shelves", then what could their reason be?

Keith Kaplan, Executive Director of the Fur Information Council of America says that J. Crew stopped selling fur because they "didn't want the headache."

Wow. I didn't know corporations put the prevention of headaches in front of profit. . Imagine the CEO of J Crew going in front of the Board and explaing, "we could have made money selling fur but we suspended fur sales because we didn't want the headache."

I wish more corporations suffered from headaches. And if corporations are such averse to experiencing these headaches, I hope PETA starts giving out more of them and with the head of the Fur Infomation Council of America confirming that it was this headache that stopped fur sales at J Crew, I am sure more are to come.

At the beginning of the article, they have some alleged fur-consumer commenting on why she loves fur. "The minks are raised on a farm. That's what they're for." I don't know whether to cry or laugh. How do you respond to that? Yes, Ms. Kelly, fur farms are there because of the fur trade. It is like justifying slavery by pointing to the existence of slaves' quarters. "The slaves live on the plantation. That's what they're for." Or if one justified abortion by merely pointing to the existence of abortion clinics or prostitution by pointing to the existence of brothels, the examples go on and on.

Headlines: Bear hunt update, Filipino dogmeat trade, more

2005-12-07T06:56:00.000-08:00

Results for "animal rights:" Google News: 2,800; Google Web: 6,220,000

New Jersey: Two-day total of bears killed reaches 167

At least 167 bears have been killed in the first two days of New Jersey's black bear hunt, according to data released Tuesday, putting the hunt on pace to eclipse the number slain in a 2003 hunt.
But the head of the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, who attributed the quick start to favorable weather conditions and the popularity of Monday's opening day, said he expects the total from the six-day hunt to be close to the 328 bears killed in the last hunt, two years ago.

Philippines: Drive against dog trade intensified

Two animal rights groups, the Global Action Network and the Network for Animals Philippines (NAP) are working closely to stop the illegal transport of dogs to the northern Philippines for meat slaughter.

Australia: Government defends live exports as scrutiny grows

WA Police last month laid charges against Emanuel Exports and two of its directors, which allege between November 10 and 14, 2003 the company breached the WA Animal Welfare Act.
The charges arose from an investigation by animal rights organisation Animals Australia, who collated video and photos, and claimed to have witnessed dead, dying, blind and sick sheep on board the livestock carrier MV Al Kuwait.
Farming groups and the WA government fear the result of the case could jeopardise the future of live animal exports from the state

Louisiana: Animal rights group applauds hearing on primate center allegations

On Thursday, the innerworkings of an animal research lab are going to scrutinized publicly when the Louisiana Ethics Board hears charges by Narriman Fakier that she was fired from the University of Louisiana's New Iberia Research Center because she blew the whistle on the lab.

In Defense of Animals, a California animal rights group, says the public hearing is unusual because the U-S Department of Agriculture often settles cases against research laboratories out of court.

Allegations listed in Fakier's lawsuit tell of monkeys who died of cold exposure and animals being abused at the center, which houses about six-thousand primates for medical research by pharmaceutical companies and the National Institutes of Health.

Fresh from J. Crew victory, Peta sets sights on L.L. Bean.

2005-12-06T09:00:00.000-08:00

PETA has retired jcruel.com but is llmean.com coming soon?

If I were Mr. L.L. Bean, I'd be scared. First of all, PETA has put up an action alert urging activists to write corporate demanding that they pull the fur off the shelves.

PETA wrote to L.L. Bean and enclosed a video that contains recent footage from undercover investigations into fur farms in China that reiterate why fur is cruel. Hidden cameras revealed that fur farmers swing raccoon dogs and foxes by their hind legs and smash their heads on the ground, injuring the animals but often leaving them conscious as they are skinned alive. Some of the animals killed in the Chinese fur trade may have been someone’s loving companions. Millions of dogs and cats—some still wearing collars—are bludgeoned, hanged, strangled, and bled to death with wire nooses. Their fur is often deliberately mislabeled as fur from other species and exported to the United States to be sold to unsuspecting customers.

Secondly, on a wild hunch I checked to see if llmean.com was available and it wasn't. You can't see who owns it though, LL Bean may have had enough foresight to buy it.

Come on, PETA! We can get fur off the shelves of one more store before Christmas. Let's do it!

A few animal rights headlines from the past 12 hours

2005-12-05T22:16:00.000-08:00

Here are some of the headlines for the past 12 hours or so.

12/6/05 0010 AZST: Results for "Animals Rights: 2,680 results on Google News, 6,540,000 on Google Web.

Bardot renews criticism of seal hunt

GENEVA - French film legend Brigitte Bardot renewed her attack on Canada's annual seal hunt in a mock trial by animal rights activists Monday. The group urged other countries to boycott Canada.

.................................

The seal hunt was among the earliest targets of the international animal-welfare movement, with major protests starting in 1969. Bardot was among many celebrities backing the campaign, which claimed a victory in 1983 when Canada banned the killing of "whitecoats" - the cute baby seals prized for their snow-white fur.

But after curtailing the hunt, Canada expanded it again in 1996.

Many countries, including the United States, ban imports of seal products. But the Canadian government says the hunt brings badly needed income to its coastal communities, earning about US$16.5 million last year, primarily from pelt sales to Norway, Denmark and China.

Hunters were allowed under a federal, three-year plan to harvest a total of 975,000 seals since 2003. The government is expected to announce its new three-year quota soon.

Animal rights group seeks council policy against intensive farming

In Australia, a local government body made up of 160,000 residents and 288 sq. miles will hopefully soon be the first governmental body in Australia to ban all intensive animal agriculture.

The council has already shut down an intensive battery hen operation and a hog operation and if the council passes the new ban, the remaining battery hen operaiton with 90,000 hens would be shut down by 2008.

More Than 50 Black Bears Killed in NJ
As opponents turned out to denounce them, hunters killed more than 50 bears Monday at the start of a state-authorized hunt aimed at thinning New Jersey's burgeoning bear population.

Hunter kills cat; PETA presses for charges

There is no history of animal abuse with Morris and prosecutors say it wasn't an act of revenge. "He was under the mistaken impression he could shoot a cat - he thought was a wild cat,” said Kalamazoo County Prosecutor Jeff Fink. “In Michigan, you can't shoot animals even if you believe them to be not owned by some particular individual."

A PETA spokesperson says, "Anyone who's so callous to take the life of an animal on a whim, they have a certain disregard for lives and suffering."

The owner of the cat says she does not want Morris to go to jail.

What a complete ass. It was deer season. He wants to shoot something with an arrow. He can't find a deer. So he shoots a cat. Because the man wants to kill something. Anything! Can't a man kill something when he wants to?!? PETA's got your back, poor cat. Even if your "owner" didn't think enough of you as to inconvenience your killer with the burden of some jail time.

Animal rights advocates in Vegas protesting rodeo animal handling

LAS VEGAS Animal protectionists plan an event in Las Vegas today to call attention to what they say is mistreatment of animals during the National Finals Rodeo.

The groups, Showing Animals Respect and Kindness and In Defense of Animals say that they will release a video showing the violent ways animals are roped and handled at rodeo events.

Wildlife Management: The New Jersey bear hunt and alternatives to hunting

2005-12-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

The black bear hunt has begun in New Jersey over the legal objections and protests of two local animal protection groups. The six day hunting season has been declared by the state in hopes of controlling the bear population in the northwestern corner of the state.

Many people have the misconception that animal rights advocates are completely disconnected from reality when it comes to wildlife management issues. We are not naive, we realize that humans are must take a stewardship role to prevent conflicts between ourselves and other species which are not good for either species. We realize that as we reshape our world, be it urban sprawl in New Jersey or corn fields in Missouri, we, as a society, inadvertently create a new dynamic for the animals that we must deal with.

Alternatives abound (I am writing this quickly because I have to get to work) such as live trapping, neutering and releasing males; zoning considerations to prevent sprawl in certain protected habitats and in critical situations, humane euthanasia.

Making the best out of bad: HSUS donates fur to comfort wildlife, PETA gives to homeless.

2005-12-04T07:12:00.000-08:00

The pro-cruelty crowd often attacks animal rights organizations for not doing anything practical to help the animals and their apparent antipathy towards people causes. Both claims are absurd as shown by the following story. PETA has given the fur coats donated to them by reformed former fur wearers to homeless shelters for quite some time now. The Humane Society of the United States has recently begun a program where fur that they receive is used to provide comfort to orphaned and abandoned baby wildlife at wildlife rehabilitation centers.

Donated furs make warm nests for rescued animals
..........
Stewart is among thousands who have donated fur coats and other furry fashions to wildlife rehabilitation centers across the country. Every year thousands of animals are rescued from roadsides, dumpsters and back yards, then nursed back to health at these centers and returned to the wild.

Wildlife rescuers cut up the furs and style them into surrogate "mothers," toys and comforting nests for abandoned and injured raccoon kits, baby bunnies and other creatures.

The Fund for Animals Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Ramona, Calif., recently took in five orphaned 2-week-old coyote pups. An assistant manager, Cindy Traisi, went rummaging for the coyote coat she had received through the Humane Society fur donation program months before.
............

Donate your fur today! HSUS's wildlife program/ PETA's homeless program

Why we fight: It gets very personal.

2005-12-03T14:30:00.000-08:00

PETA has this ad campaign that states, "If you wouldn't wear your dog... please don't wear any fur." Unfortunately, as this expose footage shot in southern China shows, there is so much more truth to that tagline than you realize.

The demand for fur unfortunately rebounded in the last few years as animal rights groups focused on other issues after successfully pummeling it in the late 1980's. Much of that demand has been answered by supply from China and they have become, how shall we say, very resourceful in being able to satisfy the demand for fur.

Most people know what is like to have compassion for their companion animals. This compassion comes from getting to know eachother. It comes from realizing that your cat is a sucker for awarm sunny spot and your dog just wants to be the center of attention. It comes from the fact that they are loyal friends and just want some cuddles and love (and generous allotments of food and treats of course, please).

Sure, animal rights people think there is a disconnect between how the average person treats and considers their companion animals and how they treat and regard other animals, such as farm animals but we are animals too and are affected by proximity and familiarity.

So when I saw the video of cats and dogs being harvested for their fur by the thousands in southern China the other day, the images tore at my heart. I cried with rage as my eyes shifted back and forth from my Tennyson, curled up sleeping on the edge of the futon next to me, to the computer screen where cats - just as adorable as my Tenny and just as beautiful as my Sonora - were crammed - 10 or more -in wire cages and thrown 10 feet or more onto the hard concrete floors where their limbs would shatter. And then being pulled out of the wire cages with what look like bull hooks to be skinned for U.S. retail.

How could I not build the bridge between the beautiful blue eyes on the left to the beautiful blue eyes on the right? And no, those eyes are not lifeless.... she gets so excited and so thrilled when I play airplane with her, I can see the urgency in her eyes when she is ** really** hungry or the frustration with daddy when he's just pissing her highness off. As for the eyes on the right, all I can see is "Why?" I don't have an answer for you, hon. I am so sorry. I weep for you, the sister of my adopted daughter. I weep with rage.

Please watch the video - and remember - the fur you see this season may very well be them and then remember yours.

"An antipathy to meddlesome so-called do-gooders"

2005-12-03T08:45:00.000-08:00

Wonder to know what kind of people work for the Center for Consumer Freedom? I found the following requirements listed on their Job Openings page for researcher/writer quite revealing,

This position requires an inquisitive, high-energy individual with a probing mind, good sense of humor, and an antipathy to meddlesome so-called do-gooders.

Note to applicants: delete all references to volunteer work where you did anything good, heaven forbid you appear to be a "meddlesome so-called do-gooder." Civic participation is for girly-men!

Here is something else entirely different that I found. I think it pegs the tactics of the anti-animal rights. It is some anonymous critic's review of an anti-animal rightist's book, "Animal Rights: The Inhumane Crusade." I wish I could contact the person that wrote this to ask them if they'd come blog with me.

This book is highly flawed and manipulative. Instead of attacking the reasoning behind animal rights as a philosophy, Oliver chooses to attack extreme members of animal rights groups in an attempt to somehow discredit the movement. Pointing out the most extreme members of any movement as a method of attack is a trick, and not a valid basis for any moral decision.

In Canada, overwhelming support for more humane conditions on farms

2005-12-02T22:45:00.000-08:00

This story has re-energized me as I prepare to gather signatures tomorrow to a get an initiative on the 2006 Arizona ballot that calls for the phasing out of veal crates and sow gestation crates that are so narrow the animals can not turn around.

New Poll on Canadian Attitudes to Farm Animals

TORONTO, ON--(CCNMatthews - Dec. 2, 2005) - Free-range Egg McMuffins? Certified-organic BLTs? Egg cartons labelled 'cage-free"? According to a new Decima Research poll conducted on behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals (CCFA) and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA):

* 80% of Canadians feel that confining farm animals to small cages that prevent them from turning around is unacceptable
* 75% agree that fast food restaurants should ensure the pork and eggs they buy come from farms that don't keep their animals in small cages
* 76% agree that grocery stores should offer customers more eggs and pork from farms that don't keep animals in small cages
* 94% agree that it is important that farm animals be treated humanely

This poll sends a clear message to the food industry that Canadians care about farm animals and want to see them humanely treated," says CCFA spokesperson John Youngman. The poll is based on a sample of 1028 Canadians and is considered accurate to within +/- 3.1%, 19 times out of 20.

PETA kills animals - no hypocrisy

2005-12-02T12:04:00.000-08:00

Ed. Note: I have no financial or professional affiliation with PETA. This is in no way to be viewed as response from PETA.

The boys at the Center for Consumer Freedom really thought they had something on PETA when they launched “petakillsanimals.com” and plastered the website address on a billboard at Times Square. PETA haters fanned out across cyberspace to educate message boards and blogs everywhere of PETA’s “dirty little secret.” At petakillsanimals.com, the opening paragraph levels the charge,

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret… PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

While this may sound scandalous and hypocritical at first the only scandal here is a sad tale of companion animal overpopulation. PETA didn’t need to come up with a response to these charges since it was already online and the Center for Consumer Freedom and everyone else who thinks they’ve got damning evidence of PETA’s ill intentions should have at least taken the time to see if PETA had taken a position on euthanasia of animals before charging hypocrisy. PETA publishes fact sheets explaining its positions on various issues. “Euthanasia: The Compassion Option” begins,

Approximately 6 to 8 million animals are handled by animal shelters in the United States each year. Even though some are reclaimed or adopted, nearly 4 million unwanted dogs and cats are left with nowhere to go. Shelters cannot humanely house and support all these animals until their natural deaths—they would be forced to live for years, lonely and stressed, in cramped cages or kennels, and other animals would have to be turned away because there would not be room for them.

This is the thesis for PETA’s stance on euthanasia. There are many in the animal protection movement who disagree. There is nothing wrong with debate, but agree or not, it is clearly not hypocrisy if their actions correspond with their previously published stance on the issue.

And then there is the whole unfortunate situation with the misguided PETA employees who stupidly dumped the carcasses of 31 euthanized animals illegally in a dumpster. Much to CCF’s glee, they were charged with 31 counts of animal cruelty despite the fact that they had been humanely euthanized. There is no excuse for what the former employees did, and they should have been charged with illegal dumping.

What really gets my blood boiling is the hypocrisy these anti-animal rights (they’re not just anti-PETA, they have a problem with the principles) folks display with their disingenuous outrage over PETA’s practice of euthanasia in hopes of trying to hype up what they think to be (or at least hope to get others to think to be) PETA’s hypocrisy.

Check out this excerpt from an anti-PETA column published in the San Francisco Gate:

That's right. PETA assails other parties for killing animals for food or research. Then it kills animals -- but for really important reasons, such as running out of room.

To draw a moral equivalence between the lives of misery, torture and slaughter that animals for food are damned to and the humane euthanasia of unwanted dogs and cats is reprehensible. Are these people really too stupid not to understand that this is about suffering.

What you also see a lot of on this subject on the internet is the idea that the reason why PETA euthanizes animals is because they have other spending priorities. It is not merely an economic issue. Yes, you could feed all these animals and hire someone to keep their cages clean but then the animals would live a miserable life deprived of the social interaction and stimulus they deserve.

As for “these animals could have been adopted.” Some of PETA’s animals are adopted, but the larger point is expressed in these statistics - nearly 10 years old - from American Humane.

Of the 1,000 shelters that replied to the National Council's survey, 4.3 million animals were handled.

In 1997 roughly 64% of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters. These animals may have been put down due to overcrowding, but may have been sick, aggressive, injured, or suffered something else.

56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. More cats are euthanized than dogs because they are more likely to enter a shelter without any owner identification.

Only 15% of dogs and 2% of cats that enter animal shelters are reunited with their owners.

25% of dogs and 24% of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted.

It’s a shame that the only tears that the anti-PETA crowd can muster for these animals are crocodile tears - when what they deserve are real tears and real advocacy.

PETA's jcruel.com is offline, when will J Crew delete fur trim from online catalog?

2005-12-02T00:16:00.000-08:00

It has been over 24 hours since J Crew announced it will no longer sell fur. PETA responded almost immediately by taking down its jcruel.com website and announcing an end to its boycott.

But as of early Friday morning, fur products are still being advertised online at jcrew.com

I am going to bed now and I truly hope that these following links are dead by the time I wake up tomorrow.

Puffer jacket with fur trim
Long puffer jacket with fur trim
Shearling hooded coat (with coyote trim)

And this is an interesting find. You know how J Crew claims their decision had nothing to do with PETA, about how it was a "business decision?" Well go to this fashion blog post and try and order the fur hat. The page says that they are sold out of it because of "unexpectedly high demand." Which is it? Was selling fur products not profitable or were they fly off the shelves due to "unexpectedly high demand?"

Epic compassion vs. cruelty fight slated for Arizona in 2006

2005-12-01T22:21:00.000-08:00

Arizonans for Humane Farms, A coalition of animal welfare and animal rights groups, has formed in Arizona to place an animal welfare initiative on the ballot in 2006 that calls for the phasing out of veal crates and sow gestation crates which are too narrow for the animal to even be able to turn around. The cruelty of these crates is well-documented, so I will not go into the particulars here. .

Veal crates are currently banned in the United Kingdom and are being phased out throughout the EU for a ban that is to begin in 2007.

A similar initiative which banned sow gestation crates got on the ballot in Florida in 2002 and was passed by Floridians 54% to 46%. The stakes are even higher this time around. On our side, the major backers of the initiative, Farm Sanctuary and HSUS, are substantially better funded. Contributions to both organizations grew steadily between the years of 2000 and 2004 by more than 33% (src: FS and HSUS 10-99's). But as animal protection movement has gained considerable momentum, the corporate farming industry is going to pull out all the stops to keep a second domino from falling. I may be a bit biased, being an Arizonan, but I am convinced that both sides realize there is way too much to lose if they lose this one and next fall there will be an epic struggle between the forces of compassion and those of cruelty.

I will be discussing this ballot initiative frequently not only because I am here in Arizona, but because I am convinced that it is of central importance to the momentum of the movement.

Ron Arnold: A leading ignoramus of the ideology of cruelty

2005-12-01T09:38:00.000-08:00

Evidently, there is this guy, Ron Arnold, who is a leading and well-respected voice in the anti-animal rights, ideology of cruelty camp. He gets around quite a bit. His main claim to fame is his supposed expertise on the acts of property destruction carried out by militant environmentalists and animal rights extremists and, in general, the evil nature of these movements. He appears regularly on Fox News and in front of Republican-controlled congressional panels as an "expert."

Folks, if Ron Arnold is the best the ideology of cruelty has to offer in way of intellectual caliber then that's a victory for the animals unto itself right there. I'm serious. I think I am going to pitch "Celebrate the Fact that Ron Arnold is an Ignoramus Day" to Farm Sanctuary. It could be a day where chickens are in the spotlight, "I may be chicken-brained, but at least I'm not Ron Arnold... he's got s--t for brains!" Anywho, you may be wanting some substance to go along with these charges and, boy, do I have a doozie.

In an essay Ron Arnold wrote a short essay, Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights: What's the Difference?." published in May of 2001, that made the following argument against veganism. Now, I know it is only one paragraph but it is so completely absurd and disconnected with reality that this in itself proves Ron Arnold deserves to be ridiculed by the chickens at Farm Sanctuary.

As an extension of this animal rights philosophy, a number of people are embracing veganism, relying exclusively on plant-based food, and plant-based and synthetic clothing. However, with less than 3 percent of the Earth's surface being suitable for crop production, animal protein and fiber will continue to be indispensable to the survival of the planet's 6 billion people, and to the conservation of natural habitat.

And where does Ron Arnold think animals get their protein from? Over half of the grain grown in the United States is fed to livestock, according to a Cornell University study which claims "If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million." Science News Online states that it "requires 11 to 17 calories of feed to produce each calorie of beef, pork, or chicken." And I won't even go into other environmental issues, such as the amount of water and fossil fuels needed to produce x calories of meat vs. x calories of pant-based foods.

This paragraph written by Ron Arnold can not be blamed on a slip of tongue or on a brain fart, it is a central argument in an essay that has been accepted as definitive by at least the Fur Commission of the USA. The essay makes up the entire content of their website's Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights page. Someday I will make a point to check out his books from the library

VICTORY: J. Crew stops selling fur. Who's next?

2005-12-01T09:11:00.000-08:00

The clothing retailer J.Crew announced last night that it would stop selling fur at its store. Although the store refuses to admit it, this move is no doubt in response to PETA's boycott campaign of the store that began less than three months ago.

This is PETA's second major anti-fur victory of 2005. Wet Seal announced in July that it would no longer carry fur products following an eight month campaign.

PETA definitely has got the big mo' going on this one, I cannot wait to see what major retailer will feel PETA's wrath next.

I think this also speaks volumes about PETA's ability to multi-task, it can be the controversial provocateur that everyone loves to hate with its shock publicity stunts - like the "My Daddy Kills Animals" flyer - and then re-enter the headlines a couple of days later with a tremendous victory like this.

Ingrid Newkirk, President and co-founder of PETA has said, "We are the pit bulls of animal protection. Don't mess with us. We will win."

"Your Daddy Kills Animals!" Part II: Tucker attempts to defend the indefensible

2005-12-01T00:07:00.000-08:00

Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s Director of Vegan Outreach, has been making the rounds on cable talk shows to defend the organization’s highly controversial shock “comic” (it’s actually not a comic book, rather a two-sided flyer), “Your Daddy Kills Animals!”

Many animal rights activists, including myself, wince when they hear of PETA’s latest shock campaign. But such shock tactics force people to think about issues they otherwise wouldn’t be thinking about and it gives the issues an amount of airtime that they would never have had without it.

This was especially true when Bruce Friedrich was interviewed by MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson. Tucker began the interview with saying point blank, “I am offended by this,” but as the interview progressed, Carlson’s over-defensiveness became apparent.

Friedrich: I know you're totally serious, but you're underestimating these kids. I worked for more than six years in a homeless shelter for families. I spend a lot of time around kids. You're underestimating them.

Tucker: I've got four kids. Don't lecture me about kids. I know I would-if someone slipped this under my door, I'd punch them out. I couldn't handle it.

Okay, let me get this straight. Tucker would respond with violence to someone slipping a flyer under his door that, as an angler, offended him by suggesting those who fished are hooked on violence. That would show ‘em, Tucker!

Bruce calmly responds to Tucker’s tirade, “You as a fisherman don't like it.” To which Tucker tries to defend his own fishing habits by saying he never intentionally killed the fish he caught and that he used barbless hooks (hooks used by catch and release fishermen to reduce damage a fish when removing the hook).

Hold on, first of all, I'm a fisherman who doesn't ever kill fish. I not only unhook the fish on barbless hooks, but I you know, do my best not to kill them, and they rarely die. I'm not attempting to justify my own fishing. I don't need to.

In the first sentence, Tucker states unequivocally that he “doesn’t ever kill fish.” In the second sentence he admits that he “[does] his best not to kill them” and “that they rarely die” (notice that he doesn’t say “I rarely kill them,” but rather “they rarely die” as if of natural causes).

In the third sentence, he says he is not attempting to justify his fishing and, in the fourth, that he doesn’t need to. So what were the first two sentences about? Remember that he is responding to the simple assertion that he “as a fisherman” doesn’t like the flyer. I think that is a fair assertion, considering he has already makes it clear that he is offended by it. Tucker responds in an attempt to distinguish himself as “a fisherman who doesn’t ever kill fish.” (versus the kind of fisherman that does kill fish, apparently) but then admits in the very next sentence that he does, in fact, kill fish. It is obvious that he, in fact, was attempting to justify “his own” fishing . A pathetic attempt that self-imploded in two sentences. Luckily for Tucker, he “doesn’t need to.”

Tucker recovers to make the only halfway plausible - albeit incorrect - argument for fishing he makes in the entire segment.

Here's the point I want to make, though, and it's a public policy point. Fishermen help and save fish populations. Where do you think the money from fishing licenses goes? It goes to save wetlands, inland wetlands in this country, and it goes to repopulate streams, brooks, and lakes with fish. That's why we have a lot of fish because of fishermen, period. It's true.

First of all, just because the proceeds generated from fishing are given to fund a worthy cause does not justify fishing. That is like saying that dog fighting would be acceptable if the proceeds generated from selling dog fighting licenses were given to a program that offered free spay and neutering.

Secondly, why do streams, rivers and lakes need to be replenished with fish?

The final thing I want to say about Tucker’s interview is his final jab at Ingrid for not “having” animals.

Tucker: I guess I'm just amazed, as I have been before. I've interviewed Ingrid Newkirk, the head of your organization. And I'm sympathetic. I love animals. I have a lot of animals.

FRIEDRICH: Thank you.

CARLSON: Unlike Ingrid Newkirk, who has no animals, incidentally.

WTF! This is obviously an attempt to paint Ingrid’s commitment to animals is hypocritical because she “has no animals” as if “having animals” is any test of how much compassion you have for them. Ingrid is constantly traveling and most likely has decided it would be unfair to adopt a companion animal only to be away for long periods of time.

"Your Daddy Kills Animals!" Part I: My initial thoughts

2005-11-30T10:13:00.000-08:00

Editor's note: Despite the commentary so far expressed on this blog, I am often critical of PETA's administrative decisions and would like to stress that the animal rights movement is not a monolithic ideology. There are many debates that rage within the movement, whether PETA's shock tactics are productive or counter-productive being one of them.

My grandfather, my father, my brother and many other members of my family are avid anglers and my first reaction when I heard about PETA's new shock comic "Your Daddy Kills Animals!" was "Oh crap, PETA must really want my family to hate me."

I have been critical of PETA's shock campaigns in the past because they seem to feed people's disdain for PETA and by extension the animal rights movement and its activists. Or maybe, it is just the truth that offends people. If PETA were to send out a press release to all the major cable news outlets saying that Fishing is a cruel "sport" that injures and kills fish which are just as capable of feeling pain as any other animal, how many of these news stations would devote an entire segment to the issue? I would guess it would have to be a horribly slow news cycle before that happened. But if you dress the truth up in a little hyperbole, it gets attention.

Think about it. Everyone is getting their shorts in a bunch with rage because of a statement that is factually non-disputable. If a man fishes and keeps the fish he catches, he kills fish. So no one can argue with the factuality of "Your Daddy Kills Animals." What people are having a problem with is that it is targeted towards kids.

I understand that parents feel, and often rightfully so, that they should act as gatekeeper to the information that their children are exposed to. But their are certain common sense truths in which they can not expect to be hidden from them, such as the fact that fish are able to feel pain and the sport of fishing causes pain and most often death to the fish being hooked.

Agri-News: Farmers may be losing battle with animal rights activists

2005-11-29T23:33:00.000-08:00

Here's an uplifting story I found published a couple of weeks ago in an agribusiness weekly, Agri-News, with Minnesota and northern Iowa distribution. While the tone of this editorial is purposefully alarmist with the goal of rallying the farmers to the cause of resisting upcoming pro-animal legislation, it's quite encouraging that this was written at all.

Farmers may be losing battle with animal rights activists

Science and economics won't defeat activists, a Dordt College professor says.

Wes Jamison, an associate agriculture professor at the Sioux Center, Iowa, college, said the animal rights activism movement seeks to end animal agriculture as it's known.

The movement is winning, Jamison said, and will continue to do so unless agriculture establishes the moral and scientific high ground.

How the hell does he suppose they can establish the moral high ground? How can killing animals for unnecessary food be spun into being more moral than not killing? In the end, they only have one card to play: denial.

Humans are projecting human qualities onto animals, he said, showing a photograph of a dog dressed in human clothes. Parents who've read Babe or Bambi to their children have infected their offspring with the virus of animal rights, he said.

I could be wrong here but the only "human" quality one has to project onto animals to be opposed to the wretched treatment of livestock animals is ability to suffer and feel pain. Indeed, the "virus" that parents infect their children with when they read Bambi or watch Babe is nothing less than the alleged human quality known as "compassion."

Animal agriculture can't eliminate the vacuum, nor can it change the social forces, Jamison said. If animal agriculture hopes to win it must establish the moral high ground and tell people about it relentlessly. "Why should you be allowed by society to do what you do?" Jamison asked. "If you can't answer, society will increasingly seek to limit what you do."

And that is how it ends, folks. Pretty encouraging for us.

Onward, animal rights brothers and sisters, go forth and infect your fellow citizens with this pestilent "virus of animal rights." We're winning!

McCartney boycotts China over dog and cat fur farms

2005-11-29T09:55:00.000-08:00

Paul McCartney has given press to newly released footage of the heinous dog and cat fur trade in China by announcing a boycott of that country.

The ex-Beatle was given a preview screening of undercover footage taken in a fur market in Guangzhou, southern China.

Dogs and cats packed in tiny crates are shown being thrown from the top deck of a bus onto concrete pavements.

In another piece of footage, cats are seen alive inside a sack before being thrown into boiling water. Laughing workers were filmed stabbing and beating the animals to death.

NY Post shills for fur industry in shameless fluff piece.

2005-11-28T23:34:00.000-08:00

Rupert Murdoch's media empire regularly shills for the industries of cruelty while never missing a chance to smear PETA. "PETA vs. PETA," a shameless column written in praise of fur fashion published in Tuesday's NY Post, is case in point.

This newly arrived Aussie, Peta Hellard, starts by relating how she has decided to come "out of the closet" and pronounce to the world that she loves fur.

Shellshocked by the Big Apple's cold temperatures, I have taken great joy in snuggling up and keeping warm in my vintage rabbit fur jacket, a fluffy fox scarf, a rabbit fur-lined hat and my newest Thanksgiving sales purchase - a puffer jacket with raccoon fur trim on the hood.

After bashing the anti-fur crowd for a couple paragraphs (including a rehashing of the red paint-throwing myths), she clarifies her position on animals,

Don't get me wrong: I am an animal lover. As a child, I even dreamed of being a veterinarian.

Pheew. For a moment there I thought she didn't care about animals but she is an animal lover. How sweet. That puts the dead animals she has wrapped around herself (who were most likely born into a hellish existence on some Chinese fur farm only to be skinned while still alive) in a whole new light! If you need more convincing, you're out of luck. What I posted above is the only time she mentions animals.

You'd think that for someone who so strongly believes that fur-wearing should be more socially-acceptable and is a self-described animal lover, she'd have more to say on the very issue that she is writing about than "I am an animal-lover."
So how can Peta Hellard defend her love of fur-wearing if she spends so little time discussing animals? You guessed it, the old pro-cruelty propaganda standby when defending the indefensible: Bash PETA.

Introduction to the Center for Consumer Freedom

2005-11-27T13:27:00.000-08:00

According to their website, the Center of Consumer Freedom is a “nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and consumers working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.” What that translates into is that they are a front group for the food industry that opposes all consumer advocacy and government regulation that may interfere with the food industry’s uninhibited production and marketing of its products to consumers.

The CCF defines Consumer freedom “as the right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves” and “that only you know what's best for you.” But what they fail to mention is that consumers do not possess an innate knowledge of all the marketplace has to offer, their decisions as to what to consume are based only on information made available to them. It appears that the CCF believes only the seller of a product has the right to provide information to the consumer. Indeed, the sole purpose of the CCF is to demonize and discredit all information that is critical of the products offered by the food industry. Who is trying to restrict the consumer’s freedom?

Animal rights activists are not the CCF’s only declared “enemies” of consumer freedom. The CCF states that a “growing cabal of "food cops," health care enforcers, militant activists, meddling bureaucrats, and violent radicals who think they know "what's best for you" are pushing against our basic freedoms.”

Some of the major causes the CCF has taken up on behalf of the consumer is a campaign to dismiss claims that obesity causes health problems, to dismiss fears of food-borne diseases such as mad cow and bird flu as hype, to debunk the "myth" that organic food is healthier than non-organic, to prevent regulation of soft drink and junk food sales to school children, etc.

But of course, the Center for Consumer Freedom’s Enemy Number One is PETA. Considering other organizations on the top of the CCF’s enemy list, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Sierra Club, PETA’s number one ranking is nothing less than badge of honor.,