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.

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?

How Much Is That Petabyte in the Window?

His math is a bit off due to confusion over terabytes vs. petabytes, but Peter Van Dijck has an interesting look at just how cheap storage will be if current trends continue (and who knows if they will?)

Van Dijck notes that over the past quarter century the cost/gigabyte of hard drive storage has decline roughly by half each year — sometimes a bit less, sometimes a bit more.

Today a petabyte of IDE hard drives would cost about $10,000. If the cost/gigabyte of HD storage keeps halving each year, on average, then five years from now that same petabyte should retail for a little over $300. Van Dijck actually forecasts much further out to when a petabyte itself will be less than $20, but extrapolating current trends out 15 years is even a bit more than a techno-opitimist like me is willing to do.

On the other hand, if current trends just hold for another 5 years I think the results will be amazing. With a petabyte, you really reach a point where you can begin to think about storing literally everything you could conceivably ever want to store. I’d have no problem filling a terabyte — in fact between my work and personal machines, I’ve got about 1.5 terabytes, with about 50% full. Give me a couple more years and I’ll probably be using 2 or 3 terabytes of storage. But 1,000 terabytes? That might even prove a challenge for me, though I’m sure new applications and higher resolution everything will make it possible (hmmmm…store all digital pictures as 16 megabyte TIFF files instead of compressed 3 or 4 megabyte JPEGS….stop bothering with lossy music formats…)

But one thing is sure — I can hardly wait to get my hand on a cheap petabyte hard drive just to see if I’m up to the challenge.

Alameda County Rejects Proposed Ban on Exotic Animal Acts

Action for Animals had been pushing for Alameda County to ban wild and exotic animal acts on the premises of the Alameda County Fairgrounds and unincorporated areas of the county. But the county’s Fair Liaison Committee rejected voted to reject the proposal, finding that the Fairgrounds Association’s policies and practices toward exotic animal shows were satisfactory.

About 40 people turned out for a meeting of the two-member Fair Liaison Committee to debate the proposed ban.

Actin for Animals’ leader Eric Mills told the committee that the presence of exotic animal acts involving elephants and tigers posted health and safety risk to fairgoers as well as the animals themselves.

But Tim Koopman, president of the Alameda County Fair Association’s board of directors, said that the fairgrounds’ animal welfare policies were effective and adequate. Koopman told the committee,

We take price in how we handle domestic and feral animals. I think we’re doing the right job.

After the committee announced it had rejected the proposal, Mills told the Contra Costa Times,

I’m going home to take a shower. I feel dirty.

Why didn’t he think of that before the meeting?

Source:

Panel disallows exotic-animal ban. Chris Metinko, Contra Costa Times, May 19, 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.

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.