Day: January 2, 2003

Berkeley City Council Asked to Declare Animals "Sentient Beings"

Animal rights activist and Berkeley City Council member Dona Spring wants the council to adopt a proclaiming that animals are “sentient beings” that has already been adopted by other cities in Ohio, New Jersey and elsewhere.

The proclamation reads,

Whereas, animals exploited by agribusiness are sentient beings — capable of awareness, feeling, and suffering; and

Whereas, human beings have an ethical obligation to refrain from causing pain and suffering to other sentient beings; and

Whereas, agribusiness commonly subjects cattle, pigs, chickens, and other farm animals to overcrowding, intensive confinement, and other conditions which cause pain and suffering;

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the City of Berkeley recognizes farm animals as sentient beings who deserve to be treated with respect and protected from inhumane treatment.

Spring told The Oakland Tribune

We’ve got to make a commitment to try to improve the lives of animals used on farms and in agriculture. Europe is way ahead of the U.S. in terms of more humane conditions, so it’s about time the message got across here.

The resolution was supposed to be taken up at the Dec. 17, 2002 meeting of the council, but was removed from the council’s Consent Calendar and moved for consideration to the January 14, 2003 city council meeting.

Source:

Respect wanted for farm animals. Angela Hill, Oakland Tribune, December 14, 2002.

Pets in California Must Be Sold with Instruction Manuals

In a new law that took effect January 1st, pet stores in California must supply buyers with instructions on the proper care of animals they sell or else face up to a $250 fine per incident.

The law was opposed by pet groups such as the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and supported by animal rights groups such as the Doris Day Animal League.

Pet store owners in California say they agree with the intention of the law, but are concerned that animal rights activists will push for absurd enforcement that will bog them down in extensive paperwork.

For example, pet store owner Shannon Jimenez told the Pasadena Star-News that her store stocks over 300 species of fish. Coming up with a one-size fits all set of instructions for care of fish quickly becomes impossible (since much depends on what other fish a prospective buyer already has in his or her tank). Pet store owners fear that animal rights activists will try to use the law in situations such as this to push their agenda.

Marshall Meyers of PIJAC said,

I’m sure the intention of the law was good, but it could be used as a harassment tool, if someone wanted to harass a store.

And if the animal rights movement is effective at anything, it is harassing those who disagree with them about animals.

Source:

Sate law requires care instructions. Terry Webster, Pasadena Star-News, January 1, 2003.

United Poultry Concerns Angered at "Chicken Abuse" on NBC's "The Tonight Show"

United Poultry Concerns sent out a press release today urging people to contact NBC and protest an animal act that Jay Leno featured on the December 30th episode of “The Tonight Show.” According to UPC,

On December 30, “The Tonight Show,” on NBC at 11:30 p.m., featured a woman which a chicken act. She made an obviously scared chicken jump through a hoop from one elevated table to another, with a space between, boasting that there was “no net.” She also made a chicken “walk the tight rope” about 7 feet high, again boasting “no net. Jay Leno and his guests made comments like “Do you sleep with the chickens?” and references to Col. Sanders. This woman and The Tonight Show put these birds in danger and made fun of them.

Source:

Protest Chicken Abuse on NBC’s “Tonight Show”. United Poultry Concerns, Action Alert, January 2, 2003.

Robin Webb Rejects Proposed Plea Agreement

Robin Webb, British Animal Liberation Front spokesman, has rejected an offer from the Somerset County Prosecutor’s Office that would have sent him home to the United Kingdom in exchange for pleading guilty to fourth degree criminal contempt for his actions at a Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty-organized protest of Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Webb was arrested after violating a court order that permits only 50 protestors at a time to congregate near the gate at HLS’ facility in New Jersey.

The plea agreement would have required Webb to pay a $1,000 fine but would not have included jail time. Webb told the New Jersey Courier News that he turned down the plea offer because he didn’t think he was charged with a violent crime. Also, if he pleads guilty or is convicted, Webb will not be able to legally return to the United States again.

Webb told the Courier News,

My only way of returning home, even for a few days over the Christmas period to be with my family, is to plead guilty to something I haven’t done, to something that is classified as a crime. And I have no intention of being blackmailed into pleading guilty to a crime merely to go home for Christmas to be with my family. That clearly shows the inhumane face of the American judicial system.

After he turned down the plea bargain, a grand jury indicted Webb on fourth degree criminal contempt.

A spokeswoman for the Franklin Township Police Department told the Courier News that it had videotapes of the protest showing Webb violating the court order,

We had a number of officers doing physical counts. . . .Mr. Webb did not just walk down the street to get to this area. He went above and beyond to enter the protest area, hence going over the allotted number, which they were all made aware of.

No word yet on when Webb will go on trial.

Source:

“Protester rejects deal to send him home. Crissa Shoemaker, Courier News (New Jersey), December 21, 2002.

British Government Steps in to Insure Huntingdon Life Sciences

On December 17, 2002, the British government stepped in and became Huntingdon Life Science’s insurer.

UK Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said of the decision,

Both these actions have been taken to secure Huntingdon from the harm caused by the criminal intimidation and assault being directed at its employees, including their families and friends, and those of its suppliers, customers and other companies.

Not surprisingly, HLS and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty offered completely different versions of why the British government decided to become HLS’ insurance provider.

SHAC spokesperson Greg Avery said of the government’s action,

This is a massive victory. Over the last 12 months SHAC has gone global. This has served as a training ground for our next target. What we are interested in is impacting Huntingdon’s bottom line.

Of course, HLS’ bottom line keeps improving as the company continues to drum up news business despite SHAC’s “massive victor[ies].”

HLS claimed in statement that Marsh Insurance had not threatened to withdraw as its insurer and that its insurance premiums had not been effected by the SHAC protests,

It [the UK government’s action] is a pre-emptive move. The government thought there could be problems and acted proactively to support us.

Sources:

Lifeline for Huntingdon. Jill Treanor, The Guardian (UK), December 18, 2002.

Activists claim victory as state insures HLS. David Firn and Andrew Bolger, The Financial Times (London), December 17, 2002.