Month: December 2003

At the end of July 2003, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals took its Holocaust On Your Plate campaign to grounds of the state capitol in Bismarck, North Dakota. Unlike other PETA appearances, however, there was an organized anti-PETA demonstration there to greet the PETA display.

A group of ranchers and farmers showed up to taunt the PETA activists. One individual, for example, offered a hamburger to PETA Holocaust On Your Plate point-man Matthew Prescott.

The protest by the farmers and ranchers was organized by farmer Marty Beard, 34, who told the Associated Press that he thought PETA’s comparison of farming to the Holocaust was ridiculous.

Beyond the taunting, however, Prescott claimed that the farmers damaged the Holocaust On Your Plate display. Prescott told the Associated Press that the display had been sliced several times with a knife, doing about $1,000 in damages to the display.

This led PETA lawyer Matthew Penzer to fire off a letter in August to Col. James Hughes, superintendent of the North Dakota Highway Patrol, demanding an investigation of the incident.

IÂ’m writing to address a recent incident that is disturbing to PETA, not only because of the incident itself, but because of the casual and irresponsible way it was apparently handled by state police officers at the scene. On July 31, a PETA representative was at the North Dakota Capitol Grounds to conduct a demonstration, for which he had a lawful permit. It is reported that the highway patrol knew of the heightened need for peace-keeping efforts at the event, because the facilities director of the Capitol Grounds notified your department approximately 60 days in advance in order to prevent potential trouble while the demo was being staged. The event, which addressed the abuses of animals on factory farms, did, in fact, draw the ire of a large beef industry-supporting “mob.” Yet, despite the fact that the gathering crowd did not have a permit to stage a counter-demonstration (or to light the open-flame grills that they had brought with them), and despite the fact that the facilities director was reportedly concerned that he had never seen a situation as “lively” as this at the Grounds, I am informed that the officers on hand neither stopped the crowdÂ’s actions nor took appropriate action to calm the increasingly agitated atmosphere. Even when the unruly men encircled our representative and hurled epithets at him — one angry member of the mob even threatened his life — the officers did not disperse or control them.

Fortunately, our representative escaped physical harm, however, PETAÂ’s property did not. The display that was used as part of the demonstration was slashed — presumably with a knife — causing more than $500 damage. Yet, despite this property damage, despite the threats of physical harm to our representative, despite the facilities rules and state laws that were violated by the hostile protestors, my understanding is that not a single arrest was made, nor even a single statement taken or police report filed. It is unclear whether the Capitol Grounds surveillance camera tapes were even reviewed to appropriately investigate the criminal conduct that occurred.

We are disheartened and concerned that the police officers, who had a responsibility to protect not only the public, but the basic freedoms this country is founded upon, apparently willfully disregarded the responsibilities of their positions and, in doing so, jeopardized the safety of our representative and our property. We hope and expect that you find such failure to act as inexcusable and intolerable as we do and that you will immediately launch an investigation into the criminal conduct that occurred at the demonstration and the conduct of the officers involved.

We believe that, had the officers at the scene properly executed their duties, the danger to PETAÂ’s representative and the damage to our property would have been avoided. We now expect an appropriate investigation and resolution of this matter by your office. Please contact me upon receipt of this letter so that we can address this matter quickly and amicably and without the need for further action. Thank you.

That letter was apparently referred on to North Dakota’s risk management agency for further investigation. Johanna Zschomler, director of North Dakota’s risk management agency, responded in a letter to Penzer that there was no evidence that police had acted as PETA described.

As far as the claims that the farmers and ranchers damaged the Holocaust display, the Associated Press reported that,

Zschomler said in her letter that surveillance videotape did not back up those claims. She said PETA could file a claim, but that “our findings would probably be a denial.”

Imagine that. Hard to believe PETA might distort and exaggerate events, isn’t it?

Sources:

State denies PETA claims of damage during protest. Associated Press, September 11, 2003.

Animal rights group gets hostile reception. Associated Press, July 31, 2003.

In September, The Fund for Animals issued a press release claiming that this year’s National Hunting and Fishing Day was "the beginning of the end" for hunting and fishing in the United States. The Fund cited a number of statistics, but left out a rather crucial one.

The Fund noted that the number of people who hunt and the number of animals killed by hunters continues to decline,

. . . According to the U[nited] S[tates] F[ish and] W[ildlife] S[ervice], in 1985 there were 16.7 million hunters in the U.S, while in 2001 there were only 13 million, a decline of 22% over fifteen years. Since 1989, the number of animals killed every year by hunters has fallen by 42 percent. This led Heidi Prescott, national director of The Fund for Animals, to comment that, "These are long-term trends, not just a blip in the numbers, and we’re delighted to see that more and more people are trading their guns for cameras."

The USFWS results showed the largest declines in "small game" (22%) and "other animal" hunting (31%). According to Norm Phelps, a program coordinator at The Fund and author of the report Body Count: The Death Toll in America’s War on Wildlife, "The decline is taking place primarily among hunters of small game. Since they kill many more animals than big game hunters, we can expect the total number of hunting victims to decline as well."

In the press release, The Fund president Michael Markarian engages in a little wishful thinking that the Fish and Wildlife Service will stop catering to hunters and fisherman,

Hunters now make up only 4.6% of the population, compared to the 31% who are wildlife watchers. It’s time for the Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife watchers. It’s time for the Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies to start paying attention to their own numbers and stop catering to a tiny special interest group. Wildlife belongs to everyone, not just the few people who hunt.

But while the numbers of hunters continues to decline — in large part due to the lack of interest in urban dwellers like myself whose idea of hunting is trying to make it safely out of the local supermarket on a Saturday afternoon — there does not appear to be any concomitant desire among non-hunters to restrict hunting.

A May 2003 Gallup poll, for example, found 76 percent of respondents opposed to a ban on hunting. Even among those who told Gallup that they supported animals having the "same rights" as human beings, fully 55 percent opposed a total ban on hunting.

Sources:

The Fund for Animals Celebrates National Hunting and Fishing Day as the Beginning of the End. Press Release, Fund for Animals, September 25, 2003.

Public Lukewarm on Animal Rights. David W. Moore, Gallup Poll Organization, May 21, 2003.

On September 23, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted without opposition a resolution condemning cat declawing and urging cat owners and veterinarians to abandon the practice.

This follows a unanimous request by the San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare that the Board of Supervisors ban cat declawing within San Francisco.

Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval instead introduced the resolution condemning cat declawing. The resolution argues that cat declawing is both unnecessary and cruel,

WHEREAS, an onychectomy is often a non-therapeutic amputation, or declawing of the third phalanx (or tip) of a cat’s paw; and,

WHEREAS, this surgical claw removal severs the attached muscles, tendons, and nerves in the front paws and can lead to bone fragments, arthritis, abscesses, biting, litter box avoidance, and degenerative claw regrowth; and,

WHEREAS, more sensible and humane alternatives exist for guarding human safety against cat scratching;

Supervisor Sandoval said that depending on the response from the public over this resolution, he may yet introduce an ordinance that would ban cat declawing in San Francisco.

The full text of the resolution can be read here.

Sources:

Clamping down on cat declawing. Simone Sebastian, San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 2003.

On October 2, Farm USA and a number of other groups marked the 20th observance of World Farm Animals Day. Prior to this year’s observance, Farm USA also released its annual look at the total number of animals slaughtered in the United States and the rest of the world.

The results are hardly surprising — despite all of that activism, the total number of animals slaughtered in the United States in 2003 is expected to exceed 10 billion for the first time (and that figure does not include fish and other aquatic organisms which Farm USA notes is itself likely to be in excess of 10 billion).

Extrapolating from partial USDA data, Farm USA estimates 2003 totals that break down like this,

According to a press release announcing the spectacular lack of success of World Farm Animal Days and similar efforts, Farm USA said,

Farmed animal literally never “have a nice day.” From birth, they are caged, crowded, deprived, drugged, mutilated, and smothered on today’s factory farms. Even slaughter may not end their agony. Recent documentaries have shown animals skinned, dismembered, and gutted in U.S. slaughterhouses while still conscious. USDA has never enforced the 1958 and 1978 federal Humane Slaughter Acts.

In more personal terms, during a 77-year lifetime [meat eaters can live to 77? I thought all non-vegans dropped dead well before that?], a typical U.S. resident is responsible for the suffering and death of 11 cows, 32 pigs and sheep, and 2,660 turkeys, chickens and ducks, and uncounted numbers of fish and other aquatic animals — enough to populate a family farm.

Americans weren’t the only people eating lots of animal flesh in 2003, of course. According to Farm USA, more than 51 billion animals were slaughtered worldwide for food in 2003.

Sources:

Animal agriculture claims 10 billion victims in 2003. Press Release, Farm USA, September 25, 2003.

In September, the Pew Initiative released the results of a poll it conducted in January 2003 to gauge the American public’s attitudes toward genetically modified plants and animals. It found, in general, significant support for genetically modified plants and significant opposition to genetically modified animals.

The Pew Initiative surveyed 1,000 Americans and asked them to rank how comfortable they felt on a scale of 0 to 10 with genetically modifying plants and animals. The rank by mean ended up looking like this,

In addition, the Pew Initiative asked half of the sample more detailed questions about plant genetic modification and the other half of the sample more detailed questions about animal genetic modification. Those results also found a wide gap between how Americans view genetically modifying plants vs. animals.

Eight-one percent of those surveyed, for example, said that producing more affordable pharmaceutical drugs was a good reason to genetically modify plants. But only 49 percent said that producing more affordable pharmaceutical drugs was a good reason genetically modify animals.

There were majorities in support of some efforts for genetically modifying animals. When asked if creating goats that would produce milk containing products that could be used in bullet-proof vests, 58 percent of respondents said that was a good reason to genetically modify animals. Similarly 57 percent said creating organs for human transplant was a good reason to genetically modify animals.

But, as the Pew Initiative noted in its summary of the poll results, in both case the opposite was still significantly stronger than it was for any of the plant-related genetic modifications that people were asked about.

This survey was an updated to another poll conducted by the Pew Initiative in January 2001 which found that Americans don’t know very much about genetically modified food. In that survey, 54 percent of Americans said they had read “not much” or “nothing” about genetically modified foods and only 19 percent of Americans said they had eaten genetically modified foods (almost every consumer in the United States has consumed GM food).

Sources:

Public Sentiment about Genetically Modified Food. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, March 2001.

Americans are far more comfortable with genetic modification of plants than animals. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, September 2003.

Poll: People Opposed to Animal Studies. Emily Gersema, Associated Press, September 18, 2003.

On September 26 a U.S. District Court issued an injunction to halt a pheasant hunting season in Cape Cod National Seashore until an environmental impact statement can be completed. The decision was a victory for the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals which sued the National Park Service to stop the hunt.

The animal rights groups filed suit in October 2002 and asked for an injunction at that time. Their request was turned down at that time.

Since the 1960s, Massachusetts state officials have been releasing non-native ring-tailed pheasants through the state for a fall hunting season. Over the past few years, about 40,000 pheasants have been brought into the state and released for a six-week hunting season.

Animal rights groups argued that the National Park Service had never prepared an environmental impact statement of the practice as is required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Park Service and hunting groups countered that since the stocking of pheasants was already established before the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, that it was exempt from the environmental impact statement requirement.

Judge Patti B. Saris disagreed. In her decision to enjoin the hunt she wrote,

Defendant-intervenors (but not NPS) argue that NEPA is not applicable to the Seashore’s hunting program because it was in place before NEPA became law. However, an ongoing federal program that was initiated prior to NEPA is not exempt from NEPA obligations. See Jones v. Lynn, 477 F.2d 885, 889 (1st Cir. 1973) (holding “‘the only correct interpretation [of NEPA] would seem to be that if the requirements of the Act can feasibly be applied – even if the project in question was begun prior to the enactment of NEPA – then they should in fact [**26] be applied.'”)

The ruling does not effect hunting of native game bird and other species in the Cape Cod National Seashore. The full text of Judge Saris’ ruling can be read here.

Sources:

Federal Court Declares Cape Cod National Seashore Sport Hunting Programs Illegal–Stocking and Hunting of Non-native Pheasants is Blocked. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, September 26, 2003.

Court Orders Park Service to Restrict Hunting at Cape Cod. Gun Industry Litigation Reporter, October 2003.

Judge Puts Cape Pheasant Hunt On Hold She Orders Us To Evaluate Harm To Environment. Andrea Estes, Boston Globe, October 1, 2003.