Month: September 2003

SHAC Activist Receives Suspended Sentence in Japan

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activist Dawn Hurst was sentenced to a three-year prison sentence that the judge in the case then suspended for five years.

Hurst, 31, is a British citizen who was convicted of stealing a dog and dozens of videotapes from research laboratories in Japan between 2001 and 2002.

Unfortunately, Judge Satoshi Shibayama apparently fell hook, line and sinker for Hurst’s repentance routine, explaining he suspended her sentence because she had sincerely repented of her crimes.

Hurst, of course, was only arrested because she travelled to Japan in April with other SHAC activists to protest at a pharmaceutical trade show being held there.

It’s amazing that they were able to convict Hurst at all since, according to statements at the time of her arrest by SHAC spokeswoman Heather James, Hurst never actually committed any crime,

Hundreds of animals are poisoned to death every day at Huntingdon Life Sciences on behalf of their Japanese customers. Dawn’s only alleged ‘crime’ is to expose this animal abuse while the real criminals such as Daiichi, CBC, Yamanouchi and Sumitomo continue to profit from the torture of animals at HLS. We demand her immediate release.

Sources:

UK shock tactics repel animal-rights activists in Japan. DAVID CYRANOSKI, Nature, 424, 119, July 10, 2003.

UK animal rights activist sentenced in Japan. China Daily, August 25, 2003.

Cops doggedly pursue animal activist. June 30, 2003.

SHAC Campaigner Arrested In Japan! Press Release, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, April 17, 2003.

Michigan House Bill No. 5029 (Dove Hunting)

HOUSE
BILL No. 5029

August 13, 2003, Introduced by Rep. Tabor and referred
to the Committee on Conservation and Outdoor Recreation.

A bill to amend 1994 PA 451,
entitled

“Natural resources and
environmental protection act,”

by amending section 40103 (MCL
324.40103), as amended by 2000 PA

191; and to repeal acts and
parts of acts.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

1 Sec. 40103. (1) “Game”
means any of the following animals

2 but does not include privately
owned cervidae species located on

3 a registered cervidae livestock
facility as that term is defined

4 in the privately owned cervidae
producers marketing act:

5 (a) Badger.

6 (b) Bear.

7 (c) Beaver.

8 (d) Bobcat.

9 (e) Brant.

10 (f) Coot.

 

1 (g) Coyote.

2 (h) Crow.

3 (i) Deer.

4 (j) Duck.

5 (k) Elk.

6 (l) Fisher.

7 (m) Florida gallinule.

8 (n) Fox.

9 (o) Geese.

10 (p) Hare.

11 (q) Hungarian partridge.

12 (r) Marten.

13 (s) Mink.

14 (t) Moose.

15 (u) Mourning dove.

16 (v) (u)
Muskrat.

17 (w) (v)
Opossum.

18 (x) (w)
Otter.

19 (y) (x)
Pheasant.

20 (z) (y)
Quail.

21 (aa) (z)
Rabbit.

22 (bb) (aa)
Raccoon.

23 (cc) (bb)
Ruffed grouse.

24 (dd) (cc)
Sharptailed grouse.

25 (ee) (dd)
Skunk.

26 (ff) (ee)
Snipe.

27 (gg) (ff)
Sora rail.



1 (hh) (gg)
Squirrel.

2 (ii) (hh)
Weasel.

3 (jj) (ii)
Wild turkey.

4 (kk) (jj)
Woodchuck.

5 (ll) (kk)
 Woodcock.

6 (mm) (ll) Virginia
rail.

7 (2) “Interim order of
the department” means an order of the

8 department issued under section
40108.

9 (3) “Kind” means
an animal’s sex, age, or physical

10 characteristics.

11 (4) “Normal agricultural
practices” means generally accepted

12 agricultural and management
practices as defined by the

13 commission of agriculture.

14 (5) “Open season”
means the dates during which game may be

15 legally taken.

16 (6) “Parts” means
any or all portions of an animal, including

17 the skin, plumage, hide,
fur, entire body, or egg of an animal.

18 (7) “Protected”
or “protected animal” means an animal or kind

19 of animal that is designated
by the department as an animal that

20 shall not be taken.

21 (8) “Residence”
means a permanent building serving as a

22 temporary or permanent home.
Residence may include a cottage,

23 cabin, or mobile home, but
does not include a structure designed

24 primarily for taking game,
a tree blind, a tent, a recreational

25 or other vehicle, or a camper.

26 Enacting section 1. Section
40110 of the natural resources

27 and environmental protection
act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.40110, is

1 repealed.

Minnesota County's Restriction on Feedlot Information Upheld

On July 31, a state official upheld a policy by Nobles County, Minnesota that raises a number of roadblocks to access information about feedlots in the county.

The Nobles County Commission approved a policy that adds additional requirements for people to meet if they want a copy of the comprehensive list of the 514 feedlots in the county. Individuals must submit a written request for the list, wait five days, pay $250, and retrieve the list in person.

The changes are in response to an April 2003 incident in which an animal rights activist trespassed on a feedlot in Nicollet County in order to photograph the site.

Commissioner of Administration Brian Lamb’s review of the policy largely upheld it with minor changes. The policy originally required individuals requesting the list to identify themselves, which Lamb overruled. The policy also originally said the list would be given to individuals only in printed format, but Lamb ruled that unless there was additional expense in doing so, the county should provide the list in electronic format as well if it were requested. Lamb also said that the county would have to prove that the $250 fee was necessary to cover its expenses — as it claims — should someone requesting the list demand such proof.

Steve Brake, president of the Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association, wants the state to go further and designate information about feedlots as “security information” that the state would not disclose to the public. Brake told the Worthington Daily Globe (Minnesota),

In the world we live in today, food is important to our national security. We have to start looking at ways to protect it . . . We have to be realistic. Terrorists are going to start looking at our food.

The full text of Lamb’s advisory opinion is available here.

Source:

State upholds Nobles County feedlot policy. Franny White, Worthington Daily Globe (Minnesota), August 5, 2003.

Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion:03-025, July 31, 2003.

Michigan Lawmaker Proposes Mourning Dove Hunt

Michigan State Rep. Susan Tabor (R) recently introduced a bill in the Michigan tate House that would remove the mourning dove from the state’s list of protected bird species, thereby allowing hunting of the mourning dove in Michigan.

Mourning dove hunting is currently legal in 39 states, including three that border Michigan — Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana.

Tabor was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying that the goal of the bill,

. . . is to convince hunters that we need to stand together on this one. I hear people say, ‘I’m a deer hunter. I don’t want to hunt doves,’ and I wonder what’s wrong with them. This isn’t about doves. It’s about hunting, and if you claim to be a hunter, you should understand that.

Animal rights activists are gearing up to oppose the move. According to the Humane Society of the United States, for example, hunting mourning doves is wrong because, among other things,

Mourning doves are small birds, yielding very little meat. Hence, dove hunting amounts to nothing more than target practice for hunters.

To which Detroit Free Press outdoors columnist Eric Sharp retorts,

I guess you’ve never heard of shrimp, oysters and bluegills. Doves are smaller than chickens, so you eat three or four instead of half of one, just as we usually eat a half-dozen or more perch compared to a single walleye fillet. And eating doves does nothing to hurt the survival of the species. If you really want to save doves, come up with a way to stop hawks from eating them.

The full text of the legislation introduced by Rep. Tabor can be read here.

Sources:

Michigan: Preserve the Ban on Dove Hunting. Press Release, Humane Society of the United States, Press Release, Undated.

Dove hunting deserves a shot. Eric Sharp, Detroit Free Press, August 21, 2003.

Help Defeat Michigan Dove Hunting Legislation. Press Release, Animal Protection Institute, August 26, 2003.

Researchers Develop Method to Produce Antibodies Quickly in Mice

In the September 2003 issue of Nature Biotechnology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas describe a new procedure they’ve developed to speed up the production of antibodies in mice as well as producing higher quality antibodies.

Center director Stephen Johnston led a team of researchers in the 1990s that first demonstrated genetic immunization, and this new research builds on the earlier discovery.

Traditionally, animals such as mice will produce antibodies after being exposed to a specific protein. So-called genetic immunization achieves the same results by injecting the gene for the protein into the animal (in this case, mice).

The newly announced technique uses the antigen gene the researchers want to target, as well as modifying a gene that controls an immune system signaling compound.

The upshot is that not only do the mice pump put the desired antibody quickly, but almost any antibody can be produced this way. In a press release, Johnston said,

A surprising result [of the research] was that we could even make mice make antibodies to their own proteins. We think this system could be used to make antibodies to all the proteins in the genome. We hope these antibodies will contribute to discoveries that drive new advances in disease treatment.

Sources:

Mice become high-output antibody factories. Reuters, August 11, 2003.

Faster method for creating antibodies in mice discovered by UT Southwestern researchers. Press Release, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, August 11, 2003.

Animal CARE Foundation Files Complaints Against Hawaiian Humane Society

Hawaii’s Animal CARE Foundation announced in August that it had filed a complaint with the Hawaii State Ethics Commission over advertisements sponsored by the Hawaiian Humane Society that focused on a proposed felony animal cruelty bill.

The Animal CARE Foundation charges that the advertisements were paid for with funds received from the Humane Society of the United States. The Foundation claims that such third party donations would have to be disclosed under Hawaii law. According to its press release,

ACF claims that the Humane Society of the United States, Inc. paid for the production of commercials which aired many times on television stations throughout the state by the Hawaiian Humane Society during the legislature’s deliberations over the proposed felony cruelty bill. HHS failed to disclose the contributions worth tens of thousands of dollars – as required by state lobbyist laws. ACF was opposed to the severely flawed bill.

Additionally, HSUS not only failed to register their lobbyist and their organization with the Hawai`i State Ethics Commission, but also hid their contribution by putting HHSÂ’s name and logo on the commercial which has already aired in several other states before being aired in Hawai`i.

“We feel that the people of Hawai`i should be aware that their laws are being affected by a wealthy mainland corporation with little to no understanding, appreciation, or respect for Hawai`i’s culture, as well as its unique problems and circumstances”, said Frank De Giacomo vice-president of Animal CARE Foundation. “They are secretly funneling lobbying money into the state -blatantly circumventing our laws.”

Source:

Ethics Complaint Filed Against Humane Societies. Press Release, Animal CARE Foundation, August 13, 2003.