Animal Rights Foundation of Florida Protests Against Hermit Crab Sales

The Boca Raton News reports that on August 15 activist with the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida showed up at the Town Center Mall to protest against a kiosk there selling hermit crabs.

Animal Rights Foundation of Florida outreach director Fred Ellis told the Boca Raton News that,

It [selling hermit crabs] sends the message to kids that animals are here for us to use and abuse on a whim and they’re not. They belong in the wild, not locked in a plastic box.

ARFF communications assistant Loretta Murray added that,

They[hermit crabs] don’t reproduce in captivity so every crab in Crab Buddies kiosk was ripped away from his or her home and family.

Hermit crabs are apparently a recent fad in the area, and sell at kiosks for $20-$50 apiece.

Source:

Protestors get crabby at Town Center Mall. Kelli Kennedy, Boca Raton News, August 16, 2003.

Israeli Supreme Court Bans Force Feeding of Foie Gras

Israel’s High Court of Justice ruled on August 11 that the force feeding of geese and ducks in the production of foie gras violates that country’s Animal Welfare Law.

A group called Concern for Helping Animals in Israel filed a lawsuit in 2001 against foie gras producers in Israel claiming that the force feeding of approximately 800,000 animals each year violated the Animal Welfare Law.

Israel is the world’s third largest producer of foie gras, and the industry employs about 600 people. There are about 100 farms producing foie gras, with about 45 percent of those using force feeding.

Those currently using force feeding will have until at least March 2005 to develop alternatives.

Sources:

Israel court cans foie gras farms. BBC, August 13, 2003.

High Court rules against force-feeding geese. Stuart Winer, The Jerusalem Post, August 13, 2003.

Court bans fattening of geese for foie gras. National Post (Canada), August 12, 2003.

Hunt Supporter Threatens Libel Lawsuit Against Opponents

Hunt supporter Iain Harris, 66, announced in August that he plans to sue opponents of hunting foxes with hounds who describe such hunts as “cruel.”

Harris told the Western Morning News (Plymouth),

This is nothing to do with trying to save hunting or with the Countryside Alliance – it is about objecting to being called cruel. I am delighted with the support we have for a joint action which we are very serious about.

As far as I am concerned this is personal and I am furious that I have been smeared. I go hunting, which is my legal and just right to do, and I do not cause any damage, I behave properly and I am certainly not cruel to any animals.

. . .

We are sick and tired of people getting away with it and other people believing they are right.” Mr Harris said he had hunted all his life, and that it gave him the opportunity to follow the hounds and ride across country where he would not normally be allowed to go.

. . .

That is the top and bottom of hunting for the majority of people. I have never done anything cruel in my life. It is nothing to do with hunting, it is about the fact that I go hunting, and I am described because of that as being cruel.

Harris claims that he has consulted with lawyers who told him he may have a case, and given the UK’s loopy libel and slander laws he may. On the other hand, even if successful, such a lawsuit would probably simply garner public support for opponents of the hunt.

As Peter Anderson of the League Against Cruel Sports told the Western Morning News,

Let him sue. All the independent MORI opinion polls which we have had carried out have consistently shown 70 per cent of the country think hunting is cruel and want it to be banned.

They are going to need a few more than 7,000 people offering support to take everyone to court.

League Against Cruel Sports head Douglas Batchelor expanded on those views telling the Western News,

Suggestions that hunters have a case against those people and organizations that say hunting is cruel have no basis in law.There is and should be no freedom to be cruel.

The legal definition of cruelty is the causing of unnecessary suffering. A cruel act is cruel, whether it be by design or neglect. Hunting with dogs is based on practices which are inherently cruel.

While Mr. Harris and others may want to use the law to silence those who oppose the deliberate cruelty of chasing wild mammals with dogs for sport, most members of the public have a very clear understanding of the cruelty of hunting. That is why, on their behalf, MPs have voted to ban it and to make it a crime. If Mr. Harris wishes to swell our campaign coffers by funding our costs when he loses, we will be happy to meet him in court.

A couple weeks after announcing his lawsuit, Harris reported receiving death threats from hunting opponents. Harris told the Press Association, however, that the threats would not deter his lawsuit,

We have got cameras all around the property recording everything that moves.

Regardless, the proposed lawsuit is simply a bad idea all around and should not be pursued.

Sources:

Anti-hunt groups react to libel threat. Western Morning News (Plymouth), August 11, 2003.

Legal fight looms over ‘cruel’ hunting claims. Nathan Pynn, Western Morning News (Plymouth), August 12, 2003.

Hunt supporter threatens to sue over cruelty claims. Richard Savill, The Daily Telegraph (London), August 14, 2003.

Hunt-Follower Receives Telephone Threats. Chris Court, Press Association News, August 23, 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.

Center for Consumer Freedom: Treat PETA Like Other Charities Who Support Terrorism

The Center for Consumer Freedom issued a press release on August 4 urging the government to treat People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals the same as other charities which have been accused of funneling money to terrorist organizations.

According to its press release,

As the frightening images of a massive August 2nd arson are seared into the minds of San Diego residents, many are left to wonder just who the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) is and who pays its bills. As law enforcement begins to look for answers, members of the public should know that the shadowy ELF enjoys financial backing from at least one tax-exempt, above-ground group — the activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

. . .

“Federal law enforcement has already shut down several American nonprofits because of their financial ties with overseas terrorists,” said David Martosko, Director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom. “Terrorism is terrorism, whether it’s international or domestic. PETA is funneling money to terrorists, and they shouldn’t be treated any differently.”

Source:

PETA Bankrolling Terrorist Group ELF. PRN Newsire, August 4, 2003.

Harassment of Chiron Employees

The Contra Costa Times ran an article in late August profiling the harassment that employees of Chiron Corp. have faced over the past few months as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty has focused on that company which contracts with Huntingdon Life Sciences for animal testing.

According to the Contra Costa Times,

Protesters have left fake tombstones on executives’ lawns and awakened employees and their families at 3 a.m., police said. No permanent damage has been inflicted, but some employees have changed their phone number and called police several times.

SHAC claims that such actions are not part of its campaign against Chiron, but of course SHAC’s web site lists the names and addresses of numerous Chiron employees along with messages referring to them as “sick animal-killing sum” and “Until you do [sever ties with HLS], we will be watching you. We will invite ourselves over to your homes and into your private lives.”

And SHAC spokeswoman Danielle Matthews says that the group supports and encourages such acts, up to and including arson and other illegal acts. Matthews told the Contra Costa Times,

We support any action that aids the closure of Huntingdon. You are actually protesting the company by protesting the executives.

Source:

Protests target firm’s execs. Matt Krupnick, Contra Costa Times, August 23, 2003.