Month: June 2003

The Omaha World-Herald's Anti-SHAC Editorial

The Omaha World-Herald ran an excellent anti-Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty editorial in early June. Citing the revulsion that many Americans had at the extremist turn that the anti-abortion movement began to take, the Omaha World-Herald points out that animal right activists have gone way beyond the tactics used by the anti-abortion extremists.

Huntingdon Life Sciences, a New Jersey lab that tests pharmaceuticals on animals, is one target of such tactics. But the animal-rights activists in this case (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty or SHAC) are not targeting Huntingdon directly. They’ve gone after the employees of companies that simply do business with Huntingdon.

An executive of a computer software company that sold software to the lab, for instance: His neighborhood was plastered with photos of a mutilated dog. His home and work telephone numbers were posted on a Web site that exhorted activists to call him day and night.

. . .

SHAC and other activists say they oppose violence against any animal, including humans. But SHAC organizer Kevin Jonas said he wouldn’t condemn others who turn to property damage or violence: “I think there’s a time and a place for every action.” The group’s Web site posts home addresses of the targets and urgers protesters to try to embarrass them.

The Omaha World-Herald compares the activities of groups like SHAC to those of the anti-abortion Justice Files, except a major difference is that SHAC goes to much greater lengths to facilitate terrorism and reprisals against those it targets than the Justice Files ever did. The Justice Files ultimately won its case at the Supreme Court precisely because it never engaged in the sort of incitement activities that SHAC does on a regular basis. It is not likely to find courts as friendly to a First Amendment defense as the Justice Files folks ultimately did.

Source:

Scare tactics: Environmental activists’ new ploys are terrorism, not free speech. Omaha World-Herald, June 4, 2003.

PETA Complains about Using Chickens as Sentinels for West Nile Virus

The Washington Post ran a story in early June about an ongoing project in Virginia to use chickens as a sentinel species to provide advance warning of West Nile virus. Maryland abandoned a similar project in 2000 in large part due to protests by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals along with concerns that the program was ineffective, and PETA’s not to happy about West Virginia’s program.

The $300,000 program has chickens situated throughout the state waiting to be bitten by mosquitoes. Officials take blood samples from the animals twice a month looking for the presence of antibodies to West Nile virus. Chickens do not get sick from West Nile, but any animal that tests positive for the antibodies is euthanized.

PETA, of course, thinks this is incredibly cruel. The Post quoted PETA research associate Cem Akin as saying,

Given the caged confinement endured by sentinel chickens and the painful blood samples taken regularly and the often sub-part conditions these animals are kept in, coupled with the complete ineffectiveness of such testing in general, we think other methods should be used to monitor for West Nile virus, such as monitoring dead bird populations, dead crows specifically.

Cyrus Lesser, chief of the mosquito control section of the Maryland Department of Agriculture, told the Post that Maryland abandoned its sentinel chicken program largely to avoid protests from animal rights activists,

We didn’t want to be on the defensive against another issue. In mosquito control, we have issues of pesticides, disease. We’ve even had people who are inquiring who think mosquitoes have rights, too.

Well, do not forget that PETA thinks ants “are sentient beings” so they would probably be defend the rights of mosquitoes as well.

Source:

Fighting a disease with hidden hens. Annie Gowen, Washington Post, June 6, 2003.

HSUS Takes Out Ad Attacking Canadian Seal Hunt

The Humane Society of the United States took out a full page ad in the Monday, June 16 edition of the New York Times calling for a tourism boycott of Canada until that country agrees to lower its seal hunt quota.

The Canadian government recently announced that it would raise the quota of harp seals that can be killed to 975,000 over the next three years, with a maximum of 350,000 in any year. In 1970, there were only 1.8 million harp seals in the North Atlantic, but today estimates put the harp seal population at 5.2 million.

The ad criticized seal hunters for clubbing baby seals, but Steve Outhouse of the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans told the CBC that, in fact, most seal hunters use rifles to kill the animals.

Outhouse also disagreed with HSUS’ contention that the increase in the quota was driven solely by pressure from fisherman who believe seals are responsible for a decline in fish stocks. Noting the near tripling of the harp seal population since 1970, Outhouse told the CBC,

This is clearly a species that is doing well, it’s thriving, it’s growing in numbers. With an international demand, the market forces are calling for more seal products to be on the market.

Outhouse also disputed HSUS’ claim that the Canadian government was subsidizing the seal hunt.

Source:

Ottawa says seal protesters need better facts. CBC News, June 16, 2003.

Another Art Installation Featuring Fish in Oregon Draws Protesters

Southern Oregon University adjunct professor Shawn Busse probably did not imagine his art exhibit featuring nine half-gallon fishbowls, each containing a single goldfish, placed atop concrete pillars would receive as much attention as it has. But then he probably did not imagine animal rights activists Barbara Rosen’s reaction when she came across the exhibit on a day when a few of the fish had died.

According to a news story in the Mail Tribune,

Soon after Busse’s work opened on May 2, animal rights activist Barbara Rosen happened on the display.

Some of the fish — originally sold as food for larger aquarium fish — were floating belly up in their bowls. Overwhelmed with emotion, Rosen left the museum and cried.

“To me, it’s frivolous,” she said. I love art. I’ve seen every art exhibit there. When art causes living creatures to suffer, that’s where I draw the line. Freedom of expression ends right there, as far as I’m concerned.

After that Rosen began protesting outside the museum almost daily holding a sign reading, “Stop the Animal Torture.” She has also been gathering signatures on a petition to ask the museum to ban live animals in its exhibits.

The goldfish originally had a pretty high mortality rate because the water in their bowls was only being cleaned weekly. Now, however, the fish bowls are being cleaned daily and the fish are housed in an aerated, filtered tank when the museum is closed. SOU biologist Michael Parker told The Associated Press that it is his judgment that the fish are being properly cared for.

Which, of course, has done little to deter Rosen. In June, according to the Associated Press, she “put on a yellow fish costume this week and imitated a dying fish in front of the museum.”

The University also issued a statement denying some of Rosen’s claims about the exhibit. The Associated Press reported,

An animal rights protester has incorrectly stated that the purpose of the exhibit is for the fish to die,” the university’s statement said.

Moreover, SOU officials said “the issue has been sensationalized by comments about ‘death chambers’ and ‘internment camps.’ The implication that fish are being intentionally mistreated or killed is inappropriate and incorrect.

Sources:

Dead goldfish spark art museum protests. Jennifer Nitson, Mail Tribune, June 6, 2003.

Goldifsh protests escalate at Oregon university art exhibit. The Associated Press, June 14, 2003.

Inktomi Still Sucks

This Salon.Com article is pretty much the same “can we really trust Google” article that every other newspaper and tech journal seemed to run a couple weeks ago. Well at least it was pretty standard fare until this howler comparing Inktomi favorably to Google,

Asked about this possibility, Tim Cadogan, Yahoo’s vice president of search, was noncommittal. “The best way to think about that is, we’re focused on our goal,” he said. “And we’re going to use whatever components technologies there are to get to that goal. To date Google has been a very good partner to us. We’ve been very happy to use them.” But Cadogan also said that Yahoo plans to invest in Inktomi’s technology, and, when asked if he thought that Inktomi’s results were as good as Google’s, Cadogan said that “a couple of third-party studies show that Inktomi is slightly better than Google.” (This study — which was commissioned by Inktomi but appears quite free of bias — found that Inktomi came up with slightly more “relevant” results for a given list of queries.)

To put it plainly, Inktomi sucks and its search results are next to useless compared to Google.

For example, suppose we go to Inktomi and search on “animal rights.” Now it really does not bother me that my site, which is usually returned in the #3 or #4 slot by Google, does not show up in the top 100 results returned by Inktomi.

No, what indicates to me that Inktomi is a complete waste of time is that this About.Com page is returned in the #6 slot by Inktomi. This page has absolutely nothing at all to do with animal rights. It is simply About.Com’s top level directory. The word “animal” doesn’t even appear on the page, and “rights” only appears in the “all rights reserved” copyright notice.

Yet Inktomi’s search engine thinks this is the sixth most relevant page for a search on “animal rights.” That is simply pathetic and shows the advantage of Google’s scheme of ranking pages in part based on the extent of inbound links.

Source:

The Google Backlash. Farhad Manjoo, Salon.Com, June 25, 2003.

Proposed APHIS Regulation of Medical Record Keeping

[[Page 17752]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. 97-033-1]

Animal Welfare; Medical Records

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations to require that research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors maintain medical records as part of their program of adequate veterinary care. We believe research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors should maintain medical records as a means of communication concerning the care being provided to animals and to ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care. In addition, these records would provide a basis for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to better assess the veterinary care programs of research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 97-033-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 97-033-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to [email protected]. Your comment must be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. Please include your name and address in your message and “Docket No. 97-033-1” on the subject line.

You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.

APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related information, including the names of organizations and individuals who have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet . . . [here].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-7586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Animal Welfare Act (the Act) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the responsibility of enforcing the Act to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The regulations established under the Act are contained in title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR), chapter I, subchapter A, parts 1, 2, and 3. Subparts C and D of 9 CFR part 2 (Sec. Sec. 2.30 through 2.40, referred to below as the regulations) require, among other things, that each research facility, dealer, and exhibitor have an attending veterinarian and maintain a program of adequate veterinary care.

Currently, Sec. 2.33(b), regarding research facilities, and Sec. 2.40(b), regarding dealers and exhibitors, describe the elements that must be included in a program of adequate veterinary care. These elements include: (1) The availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and services; (2) the use of appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries and the availability of emergency, weekend, and holiday care; (3) daily observation of all animals for health assessment; (4) guidance to principal investigators and other personnel involved in the care and use of animals regarding handling, immobilization, anesthesia, analgesia, tranquilization, and euthanasia; and (5) adequate pre- and post-procedural care according to current established veterinary medical and nursing procedures. Sections 2.33(b)(3) and 2.40(b)(3) further provide that a mechanism of direct and frequent communication is required so that timely and accurate information on problems of animal health, behavior, and well-being is conveyed to the attending veterinarian.

While maintenance of medical records is implied through our requirements for adequate veterinary care, the regulations do not specifically stipulate the maintenance of medical records as one of the elements in a program of adequate veterinary care. Medical records are an essential part of any program of adequate veterinary care. Adequate veterinary care can only be provided to animals if an accurate medical history is maintained on the animals to provide communication among all personnel involved in providing care. In addition, medical records provide a basis for APHIS inspectors to assess a veterinary care program and ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care.

Therefore, we propose to add new Sec. Sec. 2.33(b)(6) and 2.40(b)(6) to the regulations to include the maintenance of legible medical records as an additional element of the program of adequate veterinary care required by the regulations. To ensure that medical records include, at a minimum, information such as the vaccination history, surgical history, and any known drug sensitivities of the animals, we would specify that each medical record must include: (1) The identity of the animal (with the exception that routine husbandry, such as vaccinations, preventive medical procedures, or treatments, performed on all animals in a group (or herd) may be kept on a single record); (2) the date, description of the problem, pertinent history, observations, examination findings, test results, and plan for treatment and care with a tentative diagnosis and a prognosis, when appropriate; (3) the type and chronology of treatment procedures performed, the context of [[Page 17753]] the problem to which the treatment procedures pertain, and the identification of the medication used, the date given, dosage, route of administration, frequency, and duration of treatment; (4) the names of all vaccines administered and the dates of vaccination; and (5) the dates and results of all screening, routine, or other required or recommended tests.

Amending the regulations to specifically include requirements for maintaining medical records would necessitate changes to the provisions of the regulations regarding recordkeeping requirements for research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors. Section 2.35 pertains to the recordkeeping requirements for research facilities, and paragraph (f) of that section stipulates that records and reports must be maintained for at least 3 years. We would amend the recordkeeping requirements for research facilities in Sec. 2.35(f) to require that medical records be kept for 1 year after the disposition of the animals and that one copy of those records be provided to subsequent owners of the animals or to any person to whom the animals are consigned. The retention period for all other records and reports would continue to be 3 years.

We would amend Sec. 2.75, regarding recordkeeping by dealers and exhibitors, by adding a new paragraph (b)(4) requiring that one copy of the medical records be provided to subsequent owners of the animals or to any other person to whom the animals are consigned. Because Sec. 2.80 currently contains a requirement that dealers and exhibitors, among others, retain records for 1 year after the disposition of the animals, we would not need to provide a specific retention period for medical records.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This proposed rule would amend the Animal Welfare Act regulations to require that research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors maintain medical records as part of their program of adequate veterinary care. Currently, the maintenance of medical records is not specifically listed as one of the elements of a program of adequate veterinary care. However, we believe that requiring research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors to maintain medical records would help ensure that animals receive adequate veterinary care. In addition, these records would provide a basis for APHIS to better assess the veterinary care programs of research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors.

In fiscal year 2000, there were 8,773 facilities of all sizes licensed or registered under the Act, including 4,612 dealers; 2,508 exhibitors; and 1,265 research facilities. Most research facilities are large relative to other regulated entities, and the average number of animals per research facility in fiscal year 2000 was 1,027.1 This rule would affect those facilities that provide veterinary care.