Month: June 2005

Oregon Senate Considers Bill to Ban Foie Gras Sale, Production

The Oregon Senate is currently considering a bill that would ban the production and sale of foie gras in Oregon.

The bill’s language says that,

A person commits the crime of force-feeding
a bird if, for the purpose of causing the liver of the bird to
increase in size, the person:
(a) Force-feeds a bird; or
(b) Directs or authorizes an employee to force-feed a bird.

. . .

A person commits the crime of trading in
force-fed bird products if the person sells, offers for sale or
delivers one or more food products that the person knows to have
been produced in whole or in part by force-feeding a bird.

The Oregonian reported that animal rights activists believe the bill will pass in the Democrat-dominated Senate, and are working to try to convince the Republican-dominated House to consider the measure. The Oregonian quoted In Defense of Animals activist Matt Rossell as saying,

This is not a partisan issue. It’s about what we are willing to tolerate in this state in terms of animal cruelty.

Some Oregon restaurants and chefs, however, are calling the bill “extremist”. The Oregonian interviewed restaurant owner Pascal Sauton who said he added foie gras to his menu in November and sold about 200 orders. Sauton said that his customers “also appreciated that I stood up for people’s right to eat what they want.”

The full text of Oregon Senate Bill 861 can be read here.

Sources:

Foie gras prohibition bill advances to Senate floor. The Oregonian, Michelle Cole, April 19, 2005.

California Lawmakers Wants to Amend Kangaroo Leather Ban

California is the only state that has a ban on importing kangaroos or products made from kangaroos, and California Assemblywoman Nicole Parra wants to amend the law so it only includes endangered kangaroos — nonendangered kangaroos would be legal to import and sell.

The ban is felt largely in high end soccer cleats which are frequently made from kangaroo hide. The sale of such cleat sin California is currently a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.

Shoe company Adidas has been trying to have the ban overturned for several years without any success.

Parra’s bill would amend the kangaroo ban statute to read,

(b) For purposes of this section, “kangaroo”
means those species of kangaroo that are included under any of the
following:

(1) The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec.
1531 et. seq.).
(2) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora.

According to the Associated Press,

[Animal rights group] Viva! International Voice for Animals opposes the bill, saying that Australian hunters cannot differentiate between the types of kangaroos they are killing because they hunt at night.

The full text of the California Assembly Bill 734 can be read here.

Source:

Lawmaker wants to end ban on kangaroo imports. Associated Press, April 17, 2005.

Alicia Silverstone’s Cruel Garments

In April, an article at Female First noted that anti-fur, vegan activist Alicia Silverstone donned a silk dress designed by J Mendel when she appeared at the premier of “Beauty Shop.”

Mendel, of course, designs and manufacturers fur clothing.

Moreover, Silverstone refused to wear silk on her canceled television show “Miss Match.” For a look at the cruelty involved in silk production, lets turn to the pro-AR Animal Rights FAQ,

What’s wrong with silk? It is the practice to boil the cocoons that still
contain the living moth larvae in order to obtain the silk. This produces
longer silk threads than if the moth was allowed to emerge. The silkworm can
certainly feel pain and will recoil and writhe when injured.

Presumably Silverstone’s just been too busy curing cancer to keep up on these things.

Source:

Alicia Silverstone Clueless About Mendels Fur Links. Female First, 2005.

PETA Offers Congratulations to Pope Benedict XVI, and Distorts His Views on Animals

Shortly after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was named Pope Benedict XVI, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had a web page on its site congratulating the new Pope and distorting his views on animals.

Certainly Ratzinger has echoed the Catholic Church line on animals in quotes like this one that PETA cites,

Cardinal Ratzinger was echoing official church teachings, as laid out in the Catholic Catechism, which states clearly that “Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals. . . . It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.”

Of course PETA forgets to point out that Ratzinger was selected by Pope John Paul II to oversee the production of a new Latin catechism. What does that have to say about animals?

God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Don’t count on the new Pope reacting favorably to PETA’s suggestion in a letter that,

We hope that you will continue to speak out for these exploited beings. In recent years, our membership has swelled with [Catholics] who believe that animals, like people, have a sacred right to life and need to be protected from violence. . . . We turn to you now, as you take on your momentous duties, and humbly ask that you lead the way into a new era of compassion and respect for all beings, regardless of species

Source:

Benedict XVI Continues Tradition of Papal Concern for Animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Undated.

FBI Hopes Distinctive Tattoos Will Lead Them to Suspect Animal Rights Bomber

The FBI is hoping that two distinctive tattoos will lead them to suspected animal rights bomber Daniel Andreas San Diego.

San Diego, 27, is the only named suspect in the 2003 bombings of Chiron Corp. and Shaklee Corp.

The FBI obtained an arrest warrant for San Diego in October 2003, but he eluded their surveillance and he has not been heard from since.

In their investigation of San Diego, FBI investigators learned that he has a black-and-white tattoo of a building in ruins with flames in the background on his stomach, and a colored burning pastoral scene in the center of his chest.

In April, the FBI released the following artists rendering of the tattoos:

The FBI is offering a reward of $50,000 for information leading directly to San Diego’s arrest and anyone with information on his whereabouts should contact their local FBI office or American embassy or consulate.

San Diego is believed to be armed and dangerous and is known to possess a 9mm handgun according to the FBI.

Source:

FBI hopes fugitive’s tattoos will lead to tips. Stacy Finz and Peter Fimrite, San Francisco Chronicle, April 21, 2005.

Man Sentenced to 37 Months for Selling Dogfighting Videos

In April, Robert Stevens, 64, was sentenced to 37 months in prison for selling videotapes of dog fights through the mail.

Stevens is the first person prosecuted under a 1999 law that makes it illegal to sell videotapes depicting animal cruelty. That law was passed to stop “crush” videos in which women were videotaped crushing small animals and insects.

The Humane Society of the United States was one of the groups that pushed for the 1999 law, and HSUS’s Ann Chynoweth told the Associated Press,

We’re thrilled with the sentence because Stevens deserved prison time for profiting from dogfighting. Without such a meaningful sentence, his conviction would have just been the cost of doing business.

Stevens’s attorney says he plans to appeal the conviction and argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague and violated Stevens’s rights under the First Amendment.

Source:

Va. man sentenced to 37 months for dogfighting video. Joe Mandak, Associated Press, April 21, 2005.