No Compromise publishes tirade by Rod Coronado

The extremist pro-Animal Liberation Front zine No Compromise recently published
a lengthy tirade by animal rights terrorist Rodney Coronado. Coronado is currently serving
a 57-month sentence for aiding and abetting arson and handling stolen
property. Coronado helped fire-bomb a Michigan State University laboratory
in East Lansing, destroying decades of research into protecting wild mink.

So what does this convicted arsonist have
to say — the government is repressing him. That’s right. In Coronado’s
mind the only reason authorities wanted to jail him for arson was because
ALF activities “threaten big business and the government itself.”
Coronado describes the federal indictment of Josh Ellerman as having a
“political motivation” and complains about continuing “government
harassment and prosecution” of animal rights activists.

Coronado, like other ALF activists
and their supporters, believes that because ALF only firebombs buildings
and automobiles that they aren’t terrorists (or even violent). This
has to set a precedent for self-deception. Of course what ALF engages
in is terrorism. As my dictionary defines it, terrorism is “the unlawful
use or threatened use of force or violence to intimidate or coerce societies
or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

In his tirade Coronado admits this
is exactly the purpose of ALF actions, writing “when every new animal
abuse enterprise must factor into their prospective budgets the possibility
that they might be targeted by our less passive forces … then and only
then will they begin to see the need to change.” ALF’s purpose
is to intimidate laboratories and researchers into abandoning their activities.
As Coronado puts it, “our opposition [will] eventually be forced
to reckon with us in a civil manner.”

How people are to be expected to
reckon with arsonists “in a civil manner” is a subject Coronado
doesn’t choose to address.

The most ironic part of Coronado’s
diatribe is his complaint that law enforcement agencies are busy tracking
down ALF members “rather than violent offenders targeting women,
children and senior citizens.” Maybe Coronado didn’t notice
that every time he and his compatriots firebomb an installation or commit
other acts of violence, police and fire officials have to commit large
resources to solving those crimes that otherwise might be used solving
other crimes. This is not, however, the fault of the police and fire officials
but of Coronado and his compatriots.

In addition, while Coronado seems
to be under the delusion that setting fire to an empty building causes
no physical harm, in fact he and other ALF terrorists are endangering
the lives of fire and police officials who must put out these blazes.
Every year too many fire fighters lose their lives battling fires started
by arsonists. It is only a matter of time before the animal rights terrorists
add to this total.

If Coronado really wants police
to stop investigating ALF arsons he should convince his fellow activists
to stop setting fires in the first place. Until then, police and fire
officials will continue to expend resources tracking down animal rights
terrorists.

Source:

Government sanctioned repression at all time high – fight back. Rod Coronado, No Compromise, 1998.

Animal rights activists lose to Chinatown merchants

For the past few months animal rights
activists in San Francisco have been harassing Chinatown merchants who
sell live animals for food. The activists were upset that live turtles,
frogs and fish are sold in Chinatown markets and allegedly treated “inhumanely.”
The Chinatown merchants accused the animal rights activists of racism
and claimed they were only preserving the traditional practices of their
cultures.

California Superior Court Judge
Carlos Bea did the sensible thing and ruled that neither the activists’ concerns
nor the merchants claims about their traditional culture were relevant,
but instead that people have a right to kill animals for food even if
doing so inflicts pain.

Bea told the animal rights activists
that if they want new standards for the way animals are treated in the
markets, they would have to appeal to state legislators.

Prior to the lawsuit, the merchants
and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had entered into
a voluntary agreement setting conditions on housing and killing of animals.
Merchants effectively ignored that agreement once the lawsuit was settled,
but may return to it now that the case seems to be resolved.

Source:

Chinatown merchants allowed to sell live animals for food. Greg Chang, Associated Press, July 23, 1998.

California animal rights activists start campaign to ban horse meat trade

Animal rights activists in California
are currently pushing a “Save the Horses” ballot initiative
that would make it illegal for Californians to ship their horses to other
states for slaughter and processing into meat.

Horse meat, it turns out, has been
eaten in Europe and Asia for a few centuries. In Japan, for example, dinner
patrons can eat a dish featuring raw horse meat with spices and sauce.
Probably due to Americans fascination with the horse in its role in the
exploration and settlement of our nation, horse meat hasn’t caught
on in the United States.

But there are four processing plants
for horse meat in the United States, the two largest being in Texas. The United
States Department of Agriculture estimates 113,499 horses were slaughtered
in 1997.

The animal rights activists complain
that the method used for killing the horses — a four-inch bolt is shot
through the animal’s skull — is inhumane and doesn’t kill the animals immediately.
Activists have been showing videotape of horses being shot with a bolt
and then writhing on the ground. Animal rights groups also complain the
method of transporting the horses is cruel, with horses dehydrating and
injuries occurring with too many horses loaded into small, cramped quarters.

A recent study by the USDA and
the University of California-Davis contradicts these claims, however.
The study examined 309 horses taken to a slaughterhouse in Texas. It found
that injuries were actually minimized when the horses were loaded closely
together, and found dehydration occurred only after trips of more than
24 hours, and even in those cases the dehydration was described as “mild.”
All the horses were able to support their own weight, contradicting animal
rights activists claims that the animals were unable to stand because
they were so dehydrated.

Carolyn Stull, who conducted the
USDA study, told Scripps Howard that if the “Save the Horses”
initiative passes, it would only send California horse owners to other states to
auction them off, or in some extreme cases to abandon the animals.
“We are going to have a ton of starving horses around” if the
initiative passes, Stull said.

Source:

Activists just say neigh to California horse meat trade. Robert Salladay, Associated Press, June 30, 1998.

Is Milk Racist?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals made headlines recently after sending Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson a letter asking him to change the state’s official beverage from milk to something “more healthful and humane” such as soy “milk.” PETA’s letter was filled with the typical animal rights nonsense about milk — that it’s “liquid meat” that causes everything from heart disease to cancer to osteoporosis. As PETA’s Bruce Friedrich summed it up, “If the milk industry did not spendso much money promoting milk, it would be listed as a health risk.”

Pretty standard fare for PETA except that beyond its alleged health risks, PETA Chairman Alex Pacheco claimed that Wisconsin’s selection of milk as its state beverage might also be racist. See if you can follow the logic here.

Some members of minority groups are to one degree or another lactose intolerant — most mildly so. Therefore choosing milk as a state beverage is racist or as Pacheco put it, “a white choice in more ways than one.”

It is because of proclamations like this that Wisconsin Farm Bureau spokesman Tom Thieding pretty accurately describes PETA’s predicament. “I think they overplay their hand,” Thieding told Scripps Howard. “I don’t think the general public takes them seriously, especially when they do things like this and shout down children at Oscar Mayer events [PETA has been sponsoring protests of Oscar Mayer’s Weinermobile].”

Source:

“Animal-rights group PETA attacks milk as ‘liquid meat'” – Amy Rinard, Scripps Howard, July 23, 1998.

Stuart Zola testifies before Congress about animal rights distortions of science

Back in May the U.S. House Committee
on Science held a hearing to examine how to communicate scientific ideas
to the public. As part of that hearing, neuroscientist Stuart Zola,
Ph.D., testified about his experiences after being targeted by animal
rights activists for experiments he conducted on primates designed to
find answers to questions about the way the brain handles memory.

The sort of claims animal rights
activists made about Zola’s work are typical of those made against
all animal research. “Until my work became a focus of the activists,
I felt that my ‘job’ was to clarify how the brain worked and
to carry out high quality research and to do the research in a humane
and ethical way,” Zola told the committee. “But the activists
were telling a different story. A local group of activists attempted to
discredit my research and the research of my colleagues that used animals,
and claimed that we were in animal-related research ‘just for the
money and job security’ and that not only was basic research that
used animals useless, but that we were ‘torturing’ animals,
and in all ways animal research was inhumane.”

Zola said he assumed the public
would have enough of a scientific background to see through the distortions,
but instead was surprised to find them accepting the animal rights claims
about his research.

Consider the common charge that
a certain experiment doesn’t have immediate practical applications,
so therefore it is wasteful. As Zola made abundantly clear, however, this
is confusing the distinction between basic and applied research and arguing
that the former is unnecessary, which is simply not true. As Zola conceded,
his own research into the neurological structures of memory will have
little immediate practical benefit for patients,

Nevertheless, basic research is highly relevant to patient care and
the eventuality of developing effective interventions and treatments
for brain-associated memory problems. Knowledge generated by neuroscience
research has led to important advances in understanding of diseases
and disorders that affect the nervous system and in the development
of treatments that reduce suffering in humans and animals … Continued
progress in understanding how the brain works and further advances in
treating and curing disorders of the nervous system require investigations
of complex functions at all levels in living nervous systems.

Another common claim made by animal
rights activists is that animal experimentation is unnecessary because
cell/tissue cultures along with computer models can be used for the same
effect. While it is true that alternatives to animal testing do exist,
they are not appropriate for all avenues of research.

Consider computer models. Such
models designed to study some cognitive functions do exist, but there
are no computer models of the brain which would answer the questions about the way memory structures function. For that Zola and other neuroscientists
need to rely on animal experiments. Similarly, while

cell culture and tissue culture techniques can be informative for studying
the function of isolated components of a system, and can help identify
the potential toxicity or medical benefits of compounds in the early
stages of investigation … it is usually the case that we need to understand
function in the context of a whole, intact system, made up of interrelated
organs and organ systems, where they can be many different influences
on a particular function.

Studying the effects of a new drug
in a tissue or cell culture is certainly helpful, but at some point researchers
need to know how the drug will affect the entire animal — something which,
again, requires testing the drug in an animal.

The biggest surprise from Zola’s
testimony is how isolated scientists engaged in basic research remain
from the general public. Reading Zola testify how he thought the public
would see through the animal rights distortions, the immediate question
is how widespread this naiveté is among scientists. Don’t they hear
about the polls where most Americans say they believe that humans and
dinosaurs co-existed at some point, or the relatively small numbers who
understand even the rudiments of chemistry or physics?

It is also alarming that Zola reported
he would visit legislators to discuss the role of animals in medical research
and

often got comments from them that, although they had many animal activists
visit them, I was the first scientists who had ever come to discuss
these issues with them … until scientists began to talk to legislators
directly, they were often as misinformed about science and the scientific
process and the benefits of animal research as the general public.

The University of California, San
Diego, where Zola works, created a speaker’s bureau to talk about
the research they do to local schools, businesses, clubs, etc. More universities
need to make a concerted effort to reach out to their communities and
educate the public about what they are doing and why it is important.

Source:

Testimony of Stuart M. Zola, Ph.D., US House Representatives Committee on Science,
May 14, 1998.

Josh Ellerman turns himself in

Back on May 8, I reported that
Josh Ellerman, 19, had disappeared shortly before he was supposed to
be sentenced for a March 1997 attack on a fur breeding cooperative. Ellerman
had reached a plea agreement whereby he would help prosecutors identify
members of the Animal Liberation Front. There were suggestions by prosecutors
that Ellerman fled after being threatened by those he might identify.

Saying he was tired of running,
Ellerman turned himself into authorities at the end of June in Utah where
he is currently being held. A US Marshall has said Ellerman will not face
additional charges for fleeing his sentencing hearing.

Sources:

“Animal liberation Front activist held in Utah without possible bail,”
North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office release, June 30, 1998.

“Tired of Running,” Salt Lake Tribune, July 1, 1998.