Month: January 2004

Australian Activists Goes to Court Over Interference With Animal Export

Ralph Hahnheuser, who has for years been a spokesman for Australian animal rights group Animal Liberation (SA), appeared in court in January to answer charges of contaminating the feed of sheep intended for export.

Hahnheuser was arrested on November 20 after he added ham to a feedlot used by 70,000 sheep intended for export. Most of the sheep were intended to export to Middle Eastern countries where there are strong religious taboos against eating pork.

In interviews, Hahnheuser has said he is proud of his actions which he says were necessary to highlight issues surrounding live export of animals. In November he told the Sunday Mail,

This is the action we needed to have in relation to live exports. It’s drawn international attention. It’s going to be fascinating what the courts make of all of this.

Well, under Australian law knowingly feeding animal products to sheep or cattle is punishable by a fine of up to $24,000 and/or two years in jail. So, given that Hahnheuser readily admits his actions, it would seem likely that the courts will make swift work of it. At his court appearance, the prosecutor in the case told the court it would seek $1.4 million in compensatory damages.

Hahnheuser is not stranger to legal problems, having been involved in at least 10 criminal or civil cases over the years by his own admission.

Sources:

I’m no economic terrorist. Chris Pippos, Sunday Mail (South Australia), November 30, 2003.

This act of sabotage costing $50,000 a day. Alison Rehn, The Advertiser (Australia), November 21, 2003.

Sheep trade activist in court. Eve Lamb, The Standard (Australia), January 8, 2004.

New California Law on Agricultural Trespassing Goes Into Effect

On January 1, California’s new tougher standards for those convicted of trespassing on farms and ranches went into effect. Gov. Grey Davis signed SB 993 in October after it passed the California Assembly 63-5 and the state Senate 37-0.

As the legislative summary of the bill put it,

This bill would make it a trespass to enter upon lands or
buildings owned by any other person without the license of the owner
or legal occupant, where signs forbidding trespass are displayed, and
whereon cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, fowl, or any other animal is
being raised, bred, fed, or held for the purpose of food for human
consumption; or to injure, gather, or carry away any animal being
housed on any of those lands, without the license of the owner or
legal occupant; or to damage, destroy, or remove, or cause to be
removed, damaged or destroyed, any stakes, marks, fences, or signs
intended to designate the boundaries and limits of any of those
lands. By increasing the scope of an existing crime, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.

The upshot is that while a first offense will draw only a $100 fine, second and subsequent offenses can be punished by up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. Without the law, the stiffest penalty for basic trespassing was a $10 fine.

Sen. Chuck Poochigan introduced the bill and argued it was necessary to give law enforcement an unambiguous tool to deal with potential agricultural terrorism. Poochigan said of the act when it was up for consideration by the senate,

Acts of animal or
biological terrorism should be recognized as a significant
threat to California’s agriculture and consumers. Law
enforcement should be equipped to protect the resources and
citizens of the state from such acts. Existing law states that
it is a misdemeanor to enter land where oysters or other
shellfish are planted or growing or to injure, gather or carry
them away without the license of the owner or legal occupant.

This bill expands existing law by making it illegal to trespass
on lands where any animal is being housed, raised, bred, fed or
held for the purposes of food for human consumption. This bill
also corresponds with current law to make it illegal to injure
or carry away animals being held on these lands.

Animal rights activists and groups, not surprisingly, decried the passage of the bill. The Humane Society of the United States’ Wayne Pacelle told the Modesto Bee,

There’s growing concern about terrorism, and people can hit that hot button to justify severe laws to punish those who may be viewed as a threat to certain industries. THe industry is attempting to overreach, to inoculate itself from public scrutiny.

The full text of the new law can be read here.

Sources:

State toughens farm trespass laws. Eric Stern, Modesto Bee, January 2, 2004.

Attacks on Cheshire Farms Blamed on Animal Rights Extremists

On Christmas Eve, 17 farms in Cheshire, Great Britain were attacked and the victims suspect anti-hunting activists are responsible.

A similar set of attacks occurred in November when 12 farms in the area were vandalized, with fences being cut and hunt jumps destroyed. A number of farms were vandalized in both the November and December attacks.

Richard de Prez, of the Cheshire Forest Hunt, told the Chester Chronicle,

There appears to have been a direct correlation between the farms that were attacked and our program of hunt meets over the Christmas and New Year period. As with the attacks in November, there was damage caused to hunt jumps, fencing to protect livestock was ripped out and cut and gates were lifted from their hinges and discarded.

In these later incidents, pipes bringing water to water troughs for cattle and sheep were severed and livestock strayed into fields growing winter cereals.

But Jeremy Wilson of the North West Hunt Saboteurs Association told the Cheshire Chronicle that if hunt saboteurs had carried out the damage, they would have taken vocal credit for it,

We would quite happily admit it. I have no problem with disruption being caused either to the day’s hunting or farms that support hunting, as long as it is not endangering animal or human life and it is not significant criminal damage.

Sources:

Hunt saboteurs blamed for spate of attacks on farms. David Holmes, Chester Chronicle, January 9, 2004.

Anti-Blood Sports Campaigners On Wrecking Spree. Daily Post (Liverpool), January 8, 2004.

South Dakota Proposes Allowing Aerial Hunting on Public Lands

In March the South Dakota state Game, Fish and Parks Commission will consider a regulatory change to allow aerial hunters to hunt foxes and coyotes on public land. Current regulations allow hunting over private land, but forbid it over public land and water.

If approved, the change would open up an additional million acres for aerial hunting of foxes and coyotes.

Not everyone who hunts coyotes is happy about the proposed rules change. Coyote hunter Jerry Pier told the Rapid City Journal that he was afraid aerial hunters would accidentally shoot hunters on the ground, as well as fears that aerial hunters might be too efficient, leaving few coyotes for hunters on the ground to shoot.

Those favoring the change, however, argue that it’s already extremely difficult for aerial hunters to distinguish between public and private land, and that the change is needed to keep coyote numbers in check.

Doug Hansen, Game, Fish and Parks Wildlife Director for Pierre, South Dakota, told the Rapid City Journal,

It’s kind of a classic conflict between interests. If you’re out there as a predator hunter, I can see how interference from an airplane and gunner would affect your interests. On the other hand, if you’re a producer losing sheep to coyotes and public land is a safe haven for coyotes, your interests are a whole lot different.

Sources:

Aerial hunting rules may be changed. Associated Press, January 8, 2004.

S.D. aerial hunting law concerns coyote hunters. Kevin Woster, Rapid City Journal, January 15, 2004.

In Search of the Perfect Portable Writing Device

Like me, sci-fi writer Charlie Stross has some ideas and speculation about the perfect portable writing device. Namely a high resolution PDA with a portable keyboard.

Stross notes that soon — probably sometime in 2005 — PDAs with 640 x 480 resolution will likely be common and (relatively) affordable and at that resolution on, say, a 4″ screen, you’ve got an ideal portable writing platform when combined with a portable keyboard.

On the keyboard front, Stross points out that Think Outside is promising to ship a Bluetooth version of their Stowaway keyboard in May. That solves one of the drawbacks of buying portable keyboards for PDAs — having to shell out $80 or so every time you switch brands (hmmmm…okay, this probably isn’t as big of an issue for people who don’t buy new PDAs every six months).

Things get even more exciting when you combine this with other shrunken technologies.

For example, take a HP iPAQ 4155, a Stowaway XT keyboard, and a Pentax Optio S4, and for under $1,000 (well, at least before adding in the requisite SD cards for the camera and PDA), you’ve got an 802.11b-compatible PDA with a foldaway keyboard and a 4 megapixel camera that occupies less than two inches in depth for all three devices. You should be able to find a holster-style PDA carrier that can accomodate all three with no problem.

That’s moblogging in style.

Colorado Bans Feeding of Fox and Coyotes in Urban Areas

On January 8, the Colorado Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to prohibit the feeding of fox and coyotes in urban areas of the state.

Mike King, regulations manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife, told The Rocky Mountain News,

We have prohibited feeding coyotes and fox in any area where shooting a gun is not allowed. . . .We want people to stop feeding wildlife, especially animals that could be dangerous.

According to the Rocky Mountain News, the rules change follows a 2002 incident in which a woman was bitten by a coyote that a restaurant kept leaving out food for.

Violators of the ban will be fined $68 for each offense.

Source:

Request now a rule: Don’t feed the wildlife. Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News, January 9, 2004.