Category: Uncategorized

Proposed Hedgehog Cull Draws Protests

Animal rights activists and Scottish Natural Heritage are fighting over a proposed cull of the hedgehog population on the island of North Uist.

The island is home to about 200 hedgehogs, and the Scottish Natural Heritage has a single goal in mind — trap and kill them all. The hedgehogs are not native to the island and SNH maintains that they are jeopardizing the island’s native bird species. An SNH spokesman told The Scotsman,

Urgen action is needed to protection the internationally important native birds of the island. The hedgehogs are not native to the islands, and have been eating huge numbers of birds eggs.

Advocates for Animals’ Ross Minnett wants the opportunity to capture the animals and take them to the mainland. He told The Scotsman,

. . . we are still appealing to SNH to hand over any hedgehogs they catch to us so they can be relocated to the mainland. There really is no reason for them to be killed when we have everything read and in place to deal with them.

The SNH has opposed releasing the hedgehogs on the mainland because the animals are strongly territorial and the mainland already has plenty of hedgehogs — it estimates that up to 40 percent of the island hedgehogs and 20% of the mainland hedgehogs would be killed in intraspecies fighting if the animals are transplanted. As a spokesman for SNH puts it,

Some believe they will be ‘rescuing’ hedgehogs. They could in fact end up ‘rescuing’ animals from a humane death to condemn them to a slow and painful death. Both groups will end up killing hedgehogs. We’re just being upfront about it.

SNH is also carrying out a mink cull on another of the islands in the Uists.

Sources:

Hedgehog cull gets go-ahead despite rescue bid by activists. Jeremy Watson, The Scotsman, March 30, 2003.

Uist goes to war over hedgehogs galore. John MacLeod, Sunday Times (London), March 30, 2003.

Barbara Smuts' Review of Joan Dunayer's Animal Equality

Joan Dunayer recently posted a copy of a review of her book, Animal Equality, published in the journal Society and Animals. The reviewer is University of Michigan researcher Barbara Smuts who has spent much of her life researching the social behavior of nonhuman primates.

Unlike Peter Singer’s review of Dunayer’s book, Smuts largely approves of Dunayer’s view that we should talk about humans and non-humans using the same language (and even syntax). Smuts opens her review by mentioning how she was disturbed by a moment in a documentary about a man who raised an orphaned duck and eventually acquired a glider so he could fly with the duck. Smuts writes,

At first the man wondered whether the duck would recognize him, “but then,” he said, “the bird veered toward the glider and flew along beside me so close I could talk to it.” Describing this moment as “one of the most moving experiences of my life,” the man nevertheless refers to his friend as an inanimate “it,” a disturbing reminder that even people who care deeply for animals other than humans sometimes fail to speak of them as equals.

Left unstated, of course, is why caring deeply for animals means considering them as equals. Smuts seems to think that one cannot do the one without also doing the other.

Smuts is especially struck by Dunayer’s claims that language is used to deny the “individuality” of animals,

From the use of impersonal pronouns such as which rather than who, to the tendency to refer to all members of a nonhuman species as a single animal (“the chimpanzee is endangered”), to special terms such as livestock that reduce other animals to economic commodities, we ignore the unique selves of other animals in myriad ways.

A bit more bizarrely, Smuts is for some reason persuaded by Dunayer’s claim that not only do the specific words but also that syntax is unfair to animals.

Dunayer’s analyses of syntax are original and provocative. She cleverly shows how we tend to make humans the subjects of sentences, even when nonhumans are the primary actors or victims of the narrative. Similarly, linguistic conventions such as word order placing humans before nonhumans reinforce the notion that humans are important. To correct such biases, we can make an effort to structure our sentences differently (“The dog Safi and her human companion Barb went for a walk”).

Of course, doesn’t highlighting the fact that Safi is a dog also express a human desire to situate The Other in animals?

Source:

Animal Equality. Book Review, Barbara Smuts, Society and Animals, v.10, no.3.

Highlights from Peter Schnell Interview

Animal rights terrorist Peter Schnell recently gave an interview to a UK-based support group for Earth Liberation Front prisoners. Schnell, you might remember, is the genius who was arrested before he and accomplice Matthew Whyte could firebomb dairy trucks in California. They plead guilty after a police officer cruising by notice them under a lamppost putting holes into several gallon jugs of gasoline. Schnell and White plead guilty receiving 24 month and 14 month sentences respectively.

Schnell’s interview is a hodge podge of poorly thought out ideas and regular contradiction. This, for example, is what Schnell says of how the animal rights movement must succeed,

To create any type of change we need the power of the masses, thus its important to try and appeal to the masses as best we can, or at least make sure [sic] tat the invitation is always there.

Right, and torching a bunch of dairy truck was certainly going to accomplish that goal. Of course for many of these extremists, including Schnell, it’s really all about him (emphasis added),

Question: What [sic] lead you to take a more direct approach to animal liberation?

Schnell: I guess the escalation of my rage and passion got to the point where I realized that I wasn’t doing enough until I at least attempted to take such a direct approach to creating change. Granted, I guess some are not in the position to take the risk that go along with taking such a direct approach, whatever the circumstances are of their particular situation. I just realized that the temporary imprisonment that I may endure if captured, however long or short, isn’t much compared to the lifetime of suffering that the animals must endure.

Ah, cry me a river — clearly Schnell gets off on seeing himself as some sort of martyr figure, giving up everything if needs be for his pathetic cause. Not surprisingly, then, Schnell encourages others to break the law,

Amongst the other puzzle pieces that I’ve neglected to mention as necessary pieces in order for the proper connections to be made that will bring about change and bring this movement to success is directly acting on behalf of the animals or yes, breaking the law. We need those out there breaking the law to bring immediate attention to an extreme situation. We need to present that the extreme situation that the animals are in, does call for extreme measures to be taken on their behalf. I feel that breaking the law should not be looked at as inappropriate even thought it may be seen as such by the vast majority. Those willing to take a stand as the voice for the voiceless, those who value life over property, should look at the concept of breaking the law as secondary to the action itself. What can be accomplished and the necessary aspect of the action itself is what is primary. The fat that a law enacted by the state will be broken posing possible consequences should merely serve as the risk involved when taking such actions.

Peter Schnell — bring arson to the fireless.

Schnell adds that he doesn’t regret his actions, even though it landed him in prison,

Question: Do you have any regrets?

Schnell: No, I don’t have any regrets. I’ve played the night in question over in my head so many times, realizing there are things we could’ve done differently in preparing for such a night, to decrease the likelihood of our possible arrest. Although this is just the process of living your life and then learning from the mistakes you may make along your way through the course of your life, even though this is a rather extreme way of doing so. I’ve really learned so much from this experience, stemming much further than how to make such a night successful. I find myself almost thankful even, rather that regretful. Thankful, not because I’m here in prison, learning what I have and am through revelations and realizations, but because I’ve let this situation bring me to such clarity and that I’ve come to conclusions given the circumstances of the situation.

When you think about it, that was a pretty good deal that evening. Schnell didn’t actually have a chance to destroy anything and in exchange he received a nice gift-wrapped 24 month sentence. More animal rights extremists should be encouraged to find themselves in that situation.

According to Schnell, he expects to be released in late August 2003 at which time he will begin three years of supervised release.

Source:

Interview with Peter Schnell. Earth Liberation Prisoners, 2003.

Fund for Animals Files Lawsuit Over Hunting in Wildlife Refuges

According to ABCNews.Com, The Fund for Animal has filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department asking the department to ban hunters from 39 areas in federal wildlife refuges that have recently begun to allow hunting.

The lawsuit alleges that the decision to open up the 39 areas in the refuges has been made “without analyzing or disclosing the potential direct, indirect and cumulative environment impacts.” Hunting is currently allowed in more than half of the 540 federal wildlife refuges according to ABC News.

Fund for Animals president Michael Markarian told ABC,

We believe it is obscene that refuges should be turned into killing fields. There’s plenty of public land in this country where hunters can hunt. Unfortunately there’s a lot of political pressure to allow hunting on refuges.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife spokesman Mitch Snow derided the lawsuit saying,

It’s completely historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. The refuges were never created to be sanctuaries where no hunting would be allowed. Ever since the inception of the refuge system, hunting has been allowed, largely because hunting is good for conservation — hunters contribute enormously to conservation. Without hunting, we couldn’t do what we do.

Another Fish and Wildlife spokesman, Nicholas Throckmorton, noted that the federal duck stamp program — initiated in 1934 — has raised $622 million since its creation in 1934 (though it needs to be noted that while hunters must buy a federal duck stamp before hunting waterfowl, nonhunters can also purchase the stamp).

Source:

Conservation Group Cries Foul Over Growing Hunting in Wildlife Refuges. Dean Schabner, ABCNews.Com, March 18, 2003.

Activists Complain about Dolphins Used During War in Iraq

CNSNews.Com ran an interesting article in March about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ opposition to the U.S. Navy’s use of mine-detecting dolphins.

Writer Marc Morano interviewed PETA’s Stephanie Boyles who characterized the Navy’s use of the dolphins as “just ridiculous.” She told Morano,

These are animals that, number one, have not volunteered to take part in this whatsoever. Number two, they are being put in harm’s way . . . when they don’t even know they are in harm’s way.

There have been already enough victims in this world. We don’t have to start adding other species to it.

Boyles goes on to assert that although the dolphins do not realize “they are in harm’s ways” this does not mean that the dolphins don’t have a mind of their own,

Why are we spending time trying to train animals that have lives and minds of their own to try and carry out these tasks for us? That just seems a little archaic, not to mention unreliable.

. . .

They have mind of their owns; they don’t realize the tasks they are being taught to perform are life and death. And when they don’t perform correctly, human lives will be lost. [The dolphins] think this is a game and yet the risk to their lives and the amount of suffering they may endure is great, and we don’t seem to care about that.

Meanwhile Humane Society of the United State marine biologist Naomi Rose offered a more moderate approach to the dolphin issue saying it was “concerned about the welfare” of the dolphins, but stopped short of opposing their use for mine detection. Rose told Morano,

As we have in the past, we will continue to express our concerns to the Navy and Congress about the military use of marine mammals, but while the war continues, we remain focused on the welfare of all those in the combat zone — human and animal.

But it was left to Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy to state the obvious point that animal rights activists always fail to grasp,

My personal priority would be to save human lives and most especially American lives. If the dolphins can do so, hopefully at minimal risks to themselves and at great benefit to us, that seems to me to be a proper rendering of the priorities.

According to a UPI story about the program, the use of dolphins to detect mines goes back to Vietnam era. The dolphins are trained to drop a buoy near a suspected mine, which divers then inspect and detonate any mines they find.

The Navy has never released statistics on how effective the dolphins are at locating mines, but UPI quoted a retired Naval officer who helped create the dolphin program as saying that the dolphins are actually more effective than the mine sweeping ships and typically locate 99.8 percent of mines in tests.

Sources:

Dolphins Did Not ‘Volunteer’ for War, Animal ‘Rights’ Activists Say Marc Morano, CNSNews.Com, March 26, 2003.

Animal Tales: Dolphins do duty in wartime Alex Cukan, UPI Science News, March 28, 2003.

SIV-Resistant Monkey Offers Clues about HIV

One of the common animal rights arguments against the efficacy of AIDS research in non-human primates, despite the many important advances made through such research, is that most non-human primate species do not get ill and die from the Dominican Simian Virus. One of the questions for researchers has been to find out why most non-human primates can co-exist with SIV, and researchers from the University of Texas the Medical Center in Dallas and Emory University recently announced they have found two differences in the immune system that offer some insight into this question.

According to the BBC, researchers at these two institutions looked at sooty mangabey monkeys which do not become ill from SIV infection.

Dr. Donald Sodora told the BBC that one answer to why the sooty mangabey monkey does not become ill is because its immune system issues a relatively low level response to the SIV virus,

The mangabeys have just as much virus in their system as during pathogenic HIV infection of humans. . . . The absence of the indirect effects in the SIV-infected mangabeys can at least be partially attributed to the immune system, and the ability to maintain continued renewal of T cells. One potential treatment might be an approach to deactivate the immune system, in a very strategic and careful way.

The mangabey monkeys also maintain a stable level of T cells, unlike in human infections where the HIV virus quickly depletes T cell levels and thereby weakening the immune system.

Source:

Monkey offers Aids cure. The BBC, March 18, 2003.