Month: February 2005

Memo to Steven Wise: Your Gaze-Inspired Intuitions Don’t Mean Squat

Steven Wise apparently has a new book out, Though the Heavens May Fall. The book is ostensibly about an 18th century British court case that helped turn the tide against slavery in that country, and of course you can probably imagine the sort of lesson that Wise wants us to take from that (if you can’t, its that such a similar case could turn the tide toward animal rights).

As animal rights activists go, Wise is relatively harmless. He has a complex model — widely criticized by other activists — that would grant certain species legal rights based upon how likely they are to have the sort of sense of self that human beings have. Its overly complex and unworkable in this writer’s opinion, but at least Wise doesn’t run around naked or make statements that killing those he disagrees with is not such a bad idea.

But he also used an argument that is simply stupid, unconvincing, and a bit out-of-character given Wise’s legalists arguments. He gave a speech at the University of Michigan in February in which he said,

Those of us who have had the opportunity to look a chimpanzee in the eye know that we are looking at a creature who is almost like us.

Both this — and its negation — are simply non-sequiturs that might reveal something about the personal preferences of the person making the statement, but add absolutely nothing to the debate about whether a chimpanzee or other animal is similar enough to human beings to warrant granting it rights.

And just to make clear, the following sentence is also irrelevant,

Those of us who have had the opportunity to look a chimpanzee in the eye know that we are not looking at a creature who is almost like us.

Wise should be smarter than this given the criticism he’s taken from other activists. If Joan Dunayer says something like,

Those of us how have had the opportunity to study a beehive closely know that we are looking at creatures who are almost like us.

Dunayer thinks bees should have rights. Wise does not. Presumably Wise does not believe intuitions based upon gazing at a beehive are enough to make a difference, so why does he pull out this canard in trying to convince us that his intuitions upon gazing into a chimpanzee’s eyes should do the trick?

Source:

Speaker: society should move toward granting animals rights. Pauline Lewis, The Michigan Daily, February 17, 2005.

PETA Once Again Simulates Cow Slaughter in India

A brief little blurb appeared in India’s Express News Service earlier this month that read,

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will organize an awareness campaign against cow slaughter on Tuesday at the Panchwati Circle on C G Road. Dressed as ‘angel of death’ and ‘cow’, PETA activists will enact the slaughtering of a cow to create an awareness about the ill-treatment meted out to the cattle.

Alleging that these animals are treated badly at the slaughter houses, PETA plans to spread the message that ‘Leather is not vegetarian’ and promote the use of goods made from synthetic material.

I just can’t imagine a better costume for a PETA activist than the angel of death — maybe Ingrid Newkirk could dress up like that for Halloween?

Anyway, intrigued, I couldn’t find much else about this specific event, but apparently PETA has been conducting simulated cow slaughters in India for quite some time.

A press release sent out by Jason Baker in February 2001 noted that PETA planned to stage a simulated calf slaughter to protests an abattoir in front of the Gateway to India, which is a popular tourist attraction in Mumbai. According to that press release,

To draw attention to the suffering of cattle at Deonar, an ‘Angel of Death’ will beat a life-like ‘bull calf’ to death, soaking the pavement in his ‘blood’, in front of The Gateway to India while PETA members hold signs reading, ‘India: Stop Cruel Cattle transport’ and ‘Close Deonar Now’. PETA is protesting at the Gateway, Mumbai’s top tourist draw, hoping to educate both local residents and tourists about the sad state of cattle in Mumbai.

Then in October 2002, PETA’s Poorva Joshipura sent out a press release that PETA would do the same thing in Delhi to protest the government’s failure to pass an animal cruelty law that PETA favored. According to that press release,

To draw attention to the suffering of animals during transport to slaughter, an ‘Angel of Death’ will beat a life-like ‘bull calf’, soaking the pavement in his ‘blood’ (red paint), at Jantar Mantar crossing while PETA members hold signs reading, ‘India: Stop Cruel Transport’ and ‘Vajpayee: Strengthen Penalties for Animal Abuse’. PETA is protesting in Delhi, hoping to encourage Prime Minister Vajpayee to pass legislation that would increase the currently outdated and ineffective penalties for overcrowded transport and other cruelty to animals. PETA also hopes to encourage officials to take tangible action to stop rampant beating and such severe and unlawful overcrowding of animals during transport that their bones break, they suffocate and many die.

I’d love to see pictures/and or video of that.

Sources:

PETA to stage ‘cow slaughter’. Express News (India), February 15, 2005.

‘Calf’ To Be Beaten And Tortured By PETA. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, October 23, 2002.

‘Calf’ Effigy To Be Slaughtered In Front Of Gateway To India. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, February 20, 2001.

Don’t Make the Same Mistakes as the Activists — Do Your Homework

One of the things that has amazed me about the animal rights movement over these past eight years is just how inaccurate parts of that movement are and, even more bizarre, that they just don’t care.

For example, the first time I saw it, I assumed In Defense of Animals sold this t-shirt because they didn’t know the quote on it is bogus. Today, I’m pretty much convinced they just don’t give a damn. Taking their cue from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, many animal rights groups and activists put their ideology front and center, with a commitment to honesty and accuracy a distant second or third. Selling a t-shirt for years with a bogus quote is simply what these people do — its part and parcel of the way they think and operate.

That being said, this is also a problem with some of those opposed to extremist animal rights and environmental groups. For the moment, I’m going to pick on Whitney Blake who is the Daily Associate Editor at the Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper at the University of Virginia. Blake wrote an op-ed about animal rights and environmental terrorism which said, in part,

Is burning down anything they oppose a constructive way to advocate their convictions? It seems counter-productive, since more resources will have to be extracted from Mother Earth to rebuild. Such extremism undermines various environmental causes which can be trumpeted and advocated in a peaceful manner. Mainstream groups like the Sierra Club, however, haven’t been quick to condemn the acts mentioned above. A search of press releases on their Web site reveals no mention of the Earth Liberation Front or eco-terrorism.

In fact, the Sierra Club has been very forward in condemning ecoterrorism. In August 2003, for example, the Sierra Club issued a press release — which is on its website here denouncing environmental terrorism saying,

The Sierra Club strongly condemns all acts of violence in the name of the environment, and we specifically denounce the Earth Liberation Front’s recent acts of arson and vandalism at a construction site in San Diego and at car dealerships in Southern California.

While nonviolent civil disobedience has a distinguished place in American history, the Sierra Club uses only lawful means to protect the environment. We can respect the decision of those who, by undertaking acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, put themselves at risk, but peaceful disobedience and violence are vastly different acts. No matter what the motivation, the Sierra Club does not condone any acts of violence.

Moreoever, the Sierra Club actively fought Paul Watson’s recent attempt to take control of the Sierra Club board. A quick Google search of “Sierra Club ecoterrorism” produces plenty of pages showing the Sierra Club’s consistent denunciation of ecoterrorism. Blake didn’t do her homework, and ended up libeling the Sierra Club.

But Blake is a paragon of research and equanimity compared to some of the banter and claims that show up from time to time on anti-animal rights mailing lists. As we oppose the animal rights movement on issues that are often very personal and emotional to many people, it is important that we take a deep breath and perhaps a step backward and make sure we don’t become a mere reflection of the movement we oppose.

Source:

Burning down the house. Whitney Blake, The Cavalier Daily (University of Virginia), February 17, 2005.

Statement on recent acts of violence in the name of the environment. Press Release, The Sierra Club, August 25, 2003.

Compassion Over Killing Files Lawsuit Against Egg Producers Over Animal Care Certification

On February 15, Compassion Over Killing filed a lawsuit against several egg producers which display Atlanta-based United Egg Producers’ “Animal Care Certified” logo on cartons of eggs produced. The logo appears on eggs produced by more than 80 percent of egg producers in the United States, but Compassion Over Killing charges that the certification is deceptive to consumers.

United Egg Producers began its certification program in 2002. According to the UEP web site, egg producers are audited annually as to whether or not they meet guidelines the UEP has set for animal care. According to UEP,

The guidelines place top priority on the comfort, health and safety of the chickens and include:

– Increased cage space per hen, which is being phased in to avoid market disruptions.

– Standards for molting procedures based on the most current, verified scientific studies.

– Standards for trimming of chicksÂ’ beaks, when necessary, to avoid pecking and cannibalism.

– Maintaining constant supply of fresh feed, water and air ventilation throughout the chicken house and monitoring for ammonia.

– Standards for daily inspection of each bird as well proper handling and transportation.

– Availability of a new training video to instruct producer staffs on the proper handling of chickens to avoid injury to the animals.

Producers which comply with the standards set out by United Egg Producers are allowed to have their eggs carry an “Animal Care Certified” stamp.

According to a press release, Compassion Over Killing filed it lawsuit, “alleging that the “Animal Care Certified” (ACC) logo stamped on egg cartons deceives shoppers by conveying a false message of humane animal care.” Compassion Over Killing claims the certification is deceptive because the guidelines still allow egg producers to,

* Confine birds in cages so small they can’t even spread their wings,

* Slice off parts of their beaks without painkiller, and

* Starve them to the point where they’ve lost up to 30 percent of their bodyweight.

Compassion Over Killing notes that the Better Business Bureau examined the certification label at COK’s request and found it deceptive, but, of course, the BBB has no sort of legal authority in this area, and so far the Federal Trade Commission hasn’t taken up the issue.

A spokesman for the United Egg Producers told the Associated Press that COK’s lawsuit was “a nuisance lawsuit.”

Sources:

Animal Advocacy Group Sues Over Eggs. Associated Press, February 15, 2005.

Animal Care. United Egg Producers, Undated.

COK Takes Retailers and Egg Producer to Court for Misleading Claims on Egg Cartons. Press release, Compassion Over Killing, February 15, 2005.

Personally, I Blame Seth and Mark

There was a time when I was pretty obssessed with the traffic stats for my site. I’ve reached the point, however, where I don’t even think about it anymore and it’s largely the fault of Mark Morgan and Seth Dillingham and their respective companies.

Back in 1999, for example, I was very impressed that my web site served up more than 2,000,000 page views. Heck, I was impressed at the end of 2003, that I racked up an average of almost 16,000 page views/day. My goal was to reach the 34,000 page views/day mark, so I could hit the 1 million/month level.

And then came Seth and Mark and ruined it all for me. First, Seth’s company, Macrobyte, created Conversant, which lets me do a lot of sophisticated categorizing and other content management niceties without having to hire a programmer or become one myself. Then Mark and Yanisar redesigned my most popular site, AnimalRights.Net with an awesome new design.

The result? This server is currently serving up about 70,000 page views per day and growing. That’s just insane.

Why blog? I used to write for a local newspaper with a pretty sizable circulation and on occasion for a large metropolitan newspaper. I’m easily being read by more people now than I could have ever hoped for as a lower level stringer/occasional op-ed writer, and the pay’s about the same (i.e., barely covering my expenses).

Animal Rights Activists Nails Problems with Anti-Hunting Legislation

As everyone reading this is probably well aware, the ban on hunting foxes with hounds finally went into effect in Great Britain earlier this month. Although pro-hunting groups still have some limited legal options left, it is likely that the opponents of fox hunting will prevail and fox hunting with hounds will enter a very odd quasi-legal status, given the likely lack of enthusiasm on the part of police to enforce the ban and the confusion that the ban creates about what is and is not a legal hunt.

Shortly after the ban finally went into effect, The Daily Post published a profile of League Against Cruel Sports and North Wales Animal Rights activist Judi Hewitt which, to my mind, really did a nice job of inadvertently summing up the idiocy of the anti-hunt position.

Characterizing defenders of hunting as “evil people” Hewitt told The Daily Post,

The ban was good news, but I can’t understand how some limited hunting will still be allowed. All killing of wildlife should end, and I can’t stop until it does. The hunters complain about their civil rights — but what about the civil rights of those who want to visit the countryside without seeing innocent creatures horribly killed?

So let me get this straight — Hewitt won’t rest until rural areas are free of “all killing of wildlife” but she’s taken up the standard on behalf of foxes? She wants to be spared “seeing innocent creatures horribly killed” in natural settings, but comes to the aid of one of the cleverest hunters in the animal kingdom, the fox? (Foxes will, for example, engage in what is euphemistically called “surplus hunting” — killing far more prey than it can eat at the time in order to bury the carcasses and dig them up later).

How does Hewitt get from the proposition that killing wildlife is wrong to the completely contradictory proposition that foxes are “innocent”? Why do people become “evil” when they simply do to the fox what the fox has no problem at all doing to “innocent” birds and rodents?

Somebody wake me up when these people start making sense.

Source:

No rest for ‘evil people’. Andrew Forgrave, Daily Post, February 17, 2005.