I had a fairly busy animal-friendly weekend, including a fundraising brunch with Dennis Kucinich at Madeleine Bistro in Tarzana, CA, along with readying my home to receive some out-of-town guests coming to visit this week, so I had time to sift through stories, but not enough time to post. Lots of stories I wanted to highlight, and I have little time, so this will be yet another overview. Hopefully I can find the time to write about Dennis and the brunch this week.

In the meantime, check out his stance on the issues, and send him $50. If a million citizens who care about getting corporate money out of politics contribute at least that much, Dennis will be able to compete with those candidates beholden to their big-ticket sponsors.

I'll let Kinship Circle kick things off with an important alert:

URGENT: Don’t Let Illinois Resume Horse Slaughter
http://www.horse-protection.org

BACKGROUND:

5/2/07, from National Horse Protection Coalition -- Following the passage of Illinois HB 1711 by the Illinois House of Representatives on April 18, 2007, the bill now moves forward for consideration by the Illinois State Senate.

HB 1711 has been assigned to the Illinois Senate Committee on Public Health and a public hearing on the bill is scheduled for May 8, 2007. It is now more important than ever following a ruling by the DC Court of Appeals granting Cavel's emergency stay motion. The two judges in the majority issued no opinion on their ruling while the lone dissenting judge wrote a detailed opinion agreeing with the humane community and district court judge who earlier rejected their request. This ruling allows Cavel to begin killing horses immediately.

For more information on the Illinois bill and facts about horse slaughter: http://www.saplonline.org/ilfacts.htm

CONTACT INFORMATION TO TAKE ACTION:

Please contact all members of the Illinois Senate asking them to vote "YES" on HB 1711. The order of priority for calls and faxes is as follows:

1) Public Health Committee Members.
2) Senators who are "new" and/or "did not vote"
on the previous IL bill.
3) Senators who voted "yes" on the previous bill.
Please ask them to continue their support.
4) Senators who voted "no" on the previous bill.

EVERYONE CAN COMMENT: CONTACT INFO for Senate Public Health Committee members. CONTACT INFO for members of ILLINOIS SENATE.

ILLINOIS RESIDENTS ONLY: Find your State Senator and his/her contact info.

(IL Senators' previous vote record)

For further background, the Star-Telegram has this story from the Chicago Tribune. (Illinois horse-meat plant gets reprieve)


In related news, celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey has proven quite adept at generating publicity for himself in the UK by stirring up controversy. This time he is encouraging Britons to take up the consumption of horse flesh, provoking mixed responses, though mostly revulsion. Fortunately, many people are seeing the hypocrisy of not eating one animal while finding others to be perfectly acceptable. The Daily Mail is a bit annoying in how it veers back and forth between strongly considering the merits of Ramsay's exhortation and genuine disgust for the notion (mainly because of the charismatic horse's exhalted status among humans), but there are plenty of choice quotes, like this one:

I ate horse last year, in Kazakhstan. And while it was perhaps not at its gourmet best (served in huge boiled chunks in a lukewarm greasy stew with a sheep's head perched on top) the thought of what I was eating - and I'm not talking about the sheep's head - was a thousand times worse than the nasty taste.

But why is that? After all, we happily eat cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, ducks and even deer on a regular basis. Over recent years, we've embraced all manner of faddy meats - ostrich, emu, even kangaroo and crocodile. But a nice juicy horse steak? Never.

There's a Borat gag in there, but I'll leave it alone. The main thing to note is that the line between the species we eat and those we don't is incredibly arbitrary. The more we highlight that, the clearer it becomes that we shouldn't be eating any animals. You can send letters to the Daily Mail and the Sunday Telegraph. Don't forget to keep them short, to the point, and to include your location and contact information for publication.

Sources:
Daily Mail: Gordon Ramsay is urging Brits to try horse meat, but would you eat it? (allows comments)
Sunday Telegraph: We should eat horse meat, says Ramsay


On to other animals most people arbitrarily wouldn't consider eating...

This story from Pennsylvania's Tribune-Democrat drives home the need to ban the commercial sale of animals:

“I’ve had pet stores approach me and say, ‘How can I find quality puppies?’ I say, ‘You’re not going to.’ ”

This from a county Humane Society Officer, though she also suggests those interested in buying animals do so from a "reputable" breeder. This, as opposed to purchasing from pet stores that seem to be getting a lot of unhealthy animals from Amish puppy mills in the Lancaster and (now) Somerset County areas of Pennsylvania. It's sad that she'd suggest buying animals at all, rather than taking the opportunity to recommend adopting needy animal companions. But at least she paints a vivid picture that will hopefully keep people out of pet stores:

“The tragedy is with females who live their lives in cages, and their value is measured in how many puppies they can breed,” Gower said. “When they can’t breed anymore, they’re excess dogs.”

Source: The Tribune-Democrat: Bust brings puppy-mill problem to light


While I'd like to see commercialized breeding banned entirely, I'm not too thrilled with breed-specific bans, or any legislation singling out a single breed of dog, as frequently happens with pit bulls. Some Massachusetts legislators are planning a hearing next week to consider crackdowns on certain breeds of dogs, including the possible outlaw of breeds linked most frequently to attacks. I'll sum this nonsense up with a quote that mirrors my own thoughts on the issue:

"It's prejudiced to put a ban on a breed," said Milford Animal Control Officer Rochelle Thomson. "It's all about the individual animal - each one should be judged themselves."

All that said, if we didn't breed animals for our own ends in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Source: MetroWest Daily News: State may consider banning pit bulls


On to some more positive legislation, Indian Gov. Mitch Daniels signed an animal cruelty bill on Friday that would make it a "Class D felony, punishable by up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine, to kill an animal with the intent of threatening, intimidating, coercing or terrorizing a household family member." "Deviate sexual conduct" with an animal is now also a Class D felony. I can only say "finally," to that. Isn't all sexual conduct with animals deviate? Despite Peter Singer's assurance that sexual relations with other species is not transgressive if no cruelty is involved, I don't see how you can make an honest case for mutual consent. Besides, if animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, or any other self-serving purpose, why on earth would it be okay to have sex with them?

Oh, the Google hits that will bring up this post now...

Source: The News-Sentinel: Daniels signs minimum wage, animal cruelty bills (AP)


Next up is a rather lengthy op-ed condemning the trial in Vienna over granting a chimp named Hiasl certain rights previously granted only to humans. Now, this trial has been controversial for numerous reasons, including the complaint that all animals should be granted the right to life, liberty and happiness.

But this piece is rather specious in its straw man set-up, pitting this trial against the neglect of deprived humans around the world, as if one cannot simultaneously move forward in various areas of ethical consideration. One need not neglect animals to aid humans, and vice versa. The authors don't even seem to understand what rights are!

I wish I had more time to deconstruct this piece, because it is a grievous wrong to attack any justice movement solely to raise awareness of the plight of others. There are more constructive ways to make a case for compassion.

Source: OpEdNews.com: Primate Worship? Or Depo-Privations?


A big thumbs-up to Colorado State University's Tissue Engineering Laboratory for working to reduce the use of animals in research.

"As a researcher, I want to understand tissue cellular responses and develop a greater capacity to mitigate or prevent damage," said Dr. Tom Eurell, veterinarian and expert in toxicology and immunology and director of the laboratory. "As a veterinarian, I want to minimize or eliminate painful experiments in animals. Tissue engineering allows me to do both

It's nice to see movement forward in this area. The article tells readers that "recent developments in soft tissue research, including corneas, skin and muscle, can greatly reduce the number of animals used to test compounds and research tissue repair after trauma." While it would be preferable to end animal experimentation based on their right not to be used as a lab tool, I'm sleep just fine if it can be ended even sooner through replacement technologies. In effect, the race to find these replacements is a tacit acknowledgment that animals have a right to not be used this way; we're just not willing as a society to state it openly until it serves our interests to do so.

Source: High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal: CSU engineers tissues to reduce use of animals in research


I always enjoy seeing headlines like Rodeos cruel, unnatural: RSPCA (ABC News Australia). Drive that point home!

It's a pretty short, straightforward article, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals restating its "strong opposition to rodeos" ahead of last weekend's State of Origin international rodeo in Melbourne. The RSPCA's president, Dr. Hugh Wirth, said the government should go further than regulating rodeos, arguing that they should be banned altogether:

"What we're saying is that it is morally wrong to make horses buck and for humans to be riding cattle just for human entertainment, its shades of the Roman Colosseum."

Here's a bright, organic carrot of encouragement to Dr. Wirth!


On that note, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus officials have cried foul about pending legislation in Connecticut to ban the use of common elephant-herding tools, saying that it would end their appearances in the state. Cry me a river.

Oh, wait. This is about money. Silly me.

Circus officials said the economic impact if it cancels annual runs in Hartford and Bridgeport would be about $2.6 million, including $200,000 in state and local taxes and $400,000 in locally purchased supplies.

Gotta love it. The circus is going to boycott Connecticut if they ban bullhooks. Is it just me, or is that the essence of what this is all about? Not delighting audiences, and it's certainly not appreciating and respecting animals. No, as always, it's about greed, pure and simple.

If you're looking for a juicy quote from this piece, I'm happy to oblige you:

...for them to say they won't come to Connecticut is like saying 'we won't bring our corporation into the state unless we can beat up our employees.'

(part-time activist Karen Laski)

But let's not forget something very important. The real issue here is about the use of elephants in the first place, not just the tools used in their abuse. Priscilla Feral, president of the Connecticut-based Friends of Animals puts the issue into sharp relief:

"I really see it as nonsensical, because it purports to regulate the treatment of animals," Feral said. "Whether the bullhook is banned or not, you have to deprive the animal of its freedom. They're hoping to regulate the circus to make it palatable. We're saying animal acts have to go because depriving animals of their freedom is the mistreatment."

Source: The Connecticut Post: Circus claims law will end state visits


I hope this collection of top animal stories from around the world will tide you over until I am free to post again. As always, comments are welcome, but not required!

Labels: animal agriculture, animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, circus, companion animals, dogs, elephants, horse slaughter, horses, pets, primates, puppy mills, rodeo

I don't intend to blog every time a city bans animal circuses, but I did happen to catch this one, and it is encouraging to see these bans happening, so I thought it would be nice to put up some good news today:

City council voted 6-1 this week to go ahead with a bylaw banning such shows from city limits in answer to a campaign spearheaded by local B.C. SPCA representative Kathi Travers.

Travers, who also writes a weekly animals column for The Citizen, contends the animals are forced to do things they wouldn't normally do in the wild.

"Taking an animal and asking a tiger to jump through a fiery hoop, what's natural about that? It's almost like the olden days when Ringling used to have the sideshows where they had people disabilities and we'd go and say that's entertainment.," she said in an interview Tuesday.

"How can we say an animal being degraded is entertaining?"

Travers, who used to inspect zoos and circuses before she moved to Prince George from the U.S., also said circuses treat their animals poorly.

Travers said the move means Prince George has joined the ranks of 20 other B.C. communities who've banned the shows.

Source: Prince George Citizen

Labels: animal law, circus

The Buffalo News: Cruelty alleged in the big top

Tweet! Whistleblower!:

A former employee of the nation's largest traveling circus Tuesday claimed she witnessed vicious acts of animal cruelty and urged the Common Council to ban events in Buffalo that include exotic animal acts.

"The abuse was not once in a while, it occurred every day," Archele Hundley told lawmakers. "The elephants, horses and camels were hit, punched, beaten and whipped by everyone from the head of animal care down to inexperienced animal handlers hired out of homeless shelters."

The West Virginia woman claimed handlers are taught to keep the animals afraid.

Ringling Brothers denies the claims, of course, and attempted to cast doubts on Hundley's testimony. But she countered with

"When I voiced concerns to Ringling management about the animal abuse, I was either ignored or told, "If you don't like it, pack your bags,' " she insisted.

The Council's Legislation Committee held the hearing after advocates lobbied for a law that would make Buffalo off-limits to circuses that use lions, elephants and other exotic animals. More than 20 municipalities across the nation already have imposed such bans, including Hollywood, Fla.

North Council Member Joseph Golombek Jr. will likely sponsor legislation proposing such a ban in Buffalo, and Majority Leader Dominic J. Bonifacio Jr. of the Niagara District said he might co-sponsor the bill.

The circus' vice president of government relations and animal policy (interesting title, no?) replies with the limp and exploitive chestnut, "Circuses help to reinforce the role that people play as caretakers of animals." In other words, circuses reinforce a paradigm that animals are ours to do with as we please... Nice try, bub!

The education argument was dismissed by Jennifer Radecki of Animal Advocates of Western New York. She said exhibiting elephants "dressed up and performing silly tricks" contributes nothing to people's appreciation for animals.

Now we're talking. If anything, this treatment of animals (irrespective of the inherent cruelty) diminishes the audience's respect and appreciation for these magnificent beings, and animal use in circuses ought to be abolished on those grounds alone.

Labels: animal cruelty, circus

MercuryNews.com: Judge stops circus, HP Pavilion from restricting protesters

This is a big constitutional win for animal activists that have had their rights hamstrung by organizer's attempts to block protests of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus' treatment of animals at San Jose's HP Pavilion:

Protesters can film circus staff with the animals from public areas, hand out leaflets and carry signs, [U.S. District Judge James] Ware ruled.

May dominoes fall...

Labels: activism, circus

The Orange County Weekly leads with an awesome exposé on Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey's use of bullhooks to menace elephants into doing what handlers want of them. It's sickening how implied violence is used to intimidate these creatures, who are basically treated like slaves until they hit an age half their natural lifespan in the wild.

It's suggested that, as the big cats have gone, so may go the elephants. Janet Davis, who teaches at the University of Texas, has written about American circuses, and she says in the article that she thinks the circus will eventually give up elephants, but doesn't want to be seen as losing to activists.

Ultimately it's the consumer that will have the greatest impact. The popular Cirque du Soleil has proven that crowds will show up to be dazzled without animals. And with a philosophy like this, I hope a lot of animal-friendly people will patronize their shows:

“We don’t agree with the way the animals are dressed to do their tricks. We prefer to give jobs to human beings,” said Cirque’s Pierre Parisien, artistic director of Cirque’s Saltimbanco, perhaps speaking for his customers. “They are animals, not performers. They should be in the jungle. We do not agree with the way they are trained, and I’m not sure the place of an elephant or a tiger is to stand in a cage half of its life and perform all around the world. We will never have animals in our shows.”

Excuse me while I melt into a puddle for the Cirque...

Send a letter of praise to the editor, or fax to (714) 550-5908. (Letters may be edited for clarity and length)

Labels: circus, elephants, wildlife