Day: May 22, 2004

Animal Research Points to Possible Treatment for Severe Chronic Pain

Research published recently in the Journal of Clinical Investigation suggests that severe chronic pain might be treated by selectively deleting specific nerve cells that convey the pain through the nervous system.

A research team led by the National Institutes of Health in April reported that a series of experiments in rats demonstrated that a drug called resiniferatoxin could be injected in the ganglia of rats and selectively kill some cells while allowing the rats to maintain normal motor and sensory function. The researchers then followed up by using the technique to treat dogs suffering from chronic pain.

The researchers used eight dogs who had been brought to veterinary hospitals with severe pain from arthritis and cancer. The dogs were injected with resiniferatoxin to kill the neurons responsible for the sensation of chronic pain felt by the dogs. According to a press release from NIH on the study,

So effective was the treatment in eight dogs severely affected by osteroarthritis, cancer-related pain, or both, all eventually became more active and later walked with slight or no limps. Just as importantly, none showed any adverse side effects from their treatments, their temperaments were improved, and their need for other pain-controlling medications was eliminated or greatly reduced.

In addition, the pain relief the dogs experienced did not diminish as their disease progressed. Dr. Michael Iadarola said in a prepared statement,

We were very encouraged to see a long-term therapeutic benefit that did not diminish with the progression of the disease. When a cancer progresses, you often have to increase the dose of conventional pain medications, such as opiate analgesics, which can produce alterations of consciousness, activity level, and other severe side effects that can impair overall quality of life.

Source:

Animal studies show promise treating severe chronic pain. Press Release, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, May 3, 2004.

More than Thirty Groups Oppose Australian Plan to Allow Hunting of Saltwater Crocodiles

More than thirty animal-related groups, including the International Fund for Animal Welfare and Humane Society International, recently signed a petition opposing Australia’s plans to allow hunting of saltwater crocodiles.

Australia halted saltwater crocodile hunting in 1971 after the population of the species had declined to an estimated 3,000. Today, however, the population is estimated to top 75,000.

According to The Cape Argus, Australia’s Northern Territory has for the past five years issued permits to private land owners to kill up to 600 saltwater crocodiles annually. It now has plans to issue safari permits that would allow 25 of that 600 crocodile quote to be hunted as part of a safari.

Officials in the Northern Territory argue that safari hunters would bring in thousands of dollars in tourist money as compared to the few hundreds of dollars that land owners receive from the meat and skin of each crocodile.

Source:

Hands off the salties, say animal lovers. Cape Argus, May 9, 2004.

Activists Harass Pennsylvania Restaurants that Serve Foie Gras

Acts of extremism and violence by animal rights activists in California have gotten a lot of attention and led to a bill that would ban the production of foie gras in that state, but activists in Pennsylvania have recently begun protesting and vandalizing a Pennsylvania restaurant that serves the dish.

Lucca’s, in Oakland, Pennsylvania, has been the target of protests from Voices for Animal Liberation which has conducted sidewalk protests against the restaurant. According to Lucca owner Joe Jordan, police recently had to be called to break up a protest in which animal rights activists were harassing customers.

Other activists have taken their opposition to more violent ends. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

Jordan arrived at work yesterday to find a stone obelisk in front of the restaurant toppled over. A statue of the Venus de Milo also has been “chopped to bits,” Jordan said.

Last wee, someone tossed a brick with the word “quack” written across it through the front window.

Source:

Protesters target foie gras menu item. David Conti, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, May 8, 2004.

Clyde-Beatty Cole Brothers Circus Stops Using Elephants

The Clyde-Beatty Cole Brothers Circus announced in April that it would no longer feature elephants in its traveling circus shows. It will, however, continue to rent out its two remaining elephants for television commercials and educational performances.

Cole Brothers Circus’ marketing director Bill Tebbetts told the Baltimore Sun that the decision to retire the elephant act was based solely on economics, noting it cost more than $60,000 per year to take care of each elephant on the road. According to Tebbetts,

Our business has been going down over the past few years, and we wanted to add some more flair to the show.

Humane Society of the United States’ Richard Farinato, however, chalked up the move to animal rights protests and pressure against the use of circus elephants. Farinato told the Baltimore Sun,

I do think what we’re seeing with the circuses is that they’re deciding that it’s not worth taking the heat. To change the way they’re doing business, they’ve realized they need to get elephants out of sight.

Source:

Big void under the big top. Molly Knight, Baltimore Sun, May 6, 2004.

Cole Drops Elephants. Press Release, I-SPEAK, April 2004.

Animal Rights Extremism in New Zealand

New Zealand’s Sunday Star Times recently reported on the extent of acts of extremism committed by animal rights activists in that country against scientists and farmers.

It’s a bit difficult to tell how pervasive acts of animal rights terrorism are in New Zealand as opposed to say Great Britain or the United States, but certainly New Zealand extremists seem to be keeping up with their peers in other parts of the world according to the Star Times,

Bomb threats have also been made by the groups, as has the delivery of a razor blade doused in “HIV” blood to a scientist.

The tactics have led to the hiring of security specialists and even bodyguards by universities that use animals for research, research institutes, and poultry and egg producers Tegel and Inghams.

The Star Times quotes an unnamed activist who the newspaper claims is involved with a group that illegally raided a poultry farm. The activist tells the paper that such acts are justified to end animal agriculture,

What they [farmers] are going through is nothing in comparison to what hundreds of thousands of chickens on their farm go through every year.

People who profit from farm animals don’t have any right to live their life in comfort.

As in other parts of the world, animal rights groups that don’t openly participate in such illegal acts nonetheless express sympathy and/or condone such acts anyway. Phil Clayton of the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society told the paper that although his group doesn’t participate in or encourage bombings or threats against researchers,

If they are done to a deserving target, and are an effective way of making a point, I can understand the motives behind the way they are done.

According to the Star Times, “He [Clayton] said his organization would use the result of illegal actions to its advantage . . .”

Finally, Bruce Scott of poultry firm Tegel provided an excellent answer to the Star Times’ question about whether or not his firm and others should engage in public dialogues with animal rights groups. His response,

You’re dealing with an amorphous group of people who have no aim in life other than to attack anybody profiting from animals. Their cause is — don’t eat meat, don’t eat cheese, don’t eat fish. It’s a totally pointless discussion.

Source:

Animal rights activists step up terror campaign. Sunday Star Times (New Zealand), May 2, 2004.

PETA Launches Website to Target Very Short Adults In India

Apparently People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently allowed an erroneous press release to leave its premises. The press release announced that the group was launching a new web site in conjunction with Bollywood Star Jackie Shroff targeted at India.

The press release had to be mistaken, however, because it gave the URL for the site as www.PETAIndiaKids.com and said that the site was intended for children.

Now, as we all know, Ingrid Newkirk is on record as saying that PETA doesn’t target children but rather that everything it does is targeted at adults. I’m assuming that rather than children, PETA probably meant that it was targeting short adults.

Otherwise, the obvious inference would be that Newkirk lies about PETA’s methods and that just stretches the imagination to the breaking point, doesn’t it?