Tag: Action for Animals Network

PETA Cries Wolf Over J. Lo Cancelled Billboard Ad

In a classic example of its hypocrisy, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals whined to anyone who would listen in March that Jennifer Lopez had bullied Billboard into rejecting a PETA ad attacking the fur-loving actor/singer/tabloid item.

The ad featured a picture of a skinned animal accompanied by an open letter attacking Lopez for her continued wearing and use of fur in her clothing line. The letter asked for a meeting between Lopez and PETA representatives.

On March 28, however, Billboard told PETA it was cancelling the $5,000 ad, and PETA’s Lisa Lange accused Billboard of caving to pressure from Loepz’s record label, Epic.

Lopez’s publicist, Nanci Ryder, told the San Francisco Chronicle,

I’m doing my job which is protecting my client. I don’t understand why PETA wants to meet with Jennifer.

In my opinion, there would be nothing worse than a meeting, unless in the meting we could commit to not wearing fur and using fur in fashion. Unless we could do that, I didn’t quite understand where the meeting would go.

And Lopez so far is standing her ground.

Its more than a little odd to see a group that encourages animal rights terrorism and goes so far as to celebrate the murder of those with whom they disagree to turn around and complain that it was wrong for Billboard to field a concerned call from Lopez’s publicist.

Apparently in PETA’s world, only they are allowed to speak and their targets must just sit there and take the punishment from the animal rights nut cases. Good for Lopez for fighting back.

Source:

Did J. Lo force Billboard to pull PETA ad? San Francisco Chronicle, March 29, 2005.

Humane USA Targets U.S. Senate Candidate Chris John

Humane USA — an animal rights political action committee created by the Humane Society of the United States, The Fund for Animals and other groups — is targeting U.S. Senate candidate Chris John for his pro-cockfighting views.

John is part of a three-way race for an open U.S. Senate seat in Louisiana. He is running against Republican David Vitter and fellow Democrat John Kennedy. Both Vitter and Kennedy oppose cockfighting. Currently Vitter is leading the race polling at about 43 percent, but if no candidate receives a majority then a runoff election between the two top vote getters is held.

In article on its website, Humane USA says,

Chris John is clearly out of step with Louisiana voters. He has established himself as the go-to guy in Congress for the cockfighting industry. Louisiana is one of two states where cockfighting is legal, and John has been a staunch advocate of the activity in which roosters are pumped with drugs, sharp knives and razors are strapped to their legs, and they are forced to hack each other to death for entertainment and gambling.

When legislation to ban the interstate transport of fighting birds came up before the House Agriculture Committee, John tried to bottle it up. “Let me be very clear about my position on this,” he lectured. “I strongly support the cockfighting industry in Louisiana. I am adamantly opposed to this piece of legislation, and I will vote against it in every opportunity that I have.” He described cockfighting, in an interview with the Baton Rouge Advocate, as a “cultural, family-type” activity and “an industry that is very important to America.”

Humane USA is running ads against John in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Lafayette, and also plans for a mass mailing target Democratic and independent women voters in the state.

Sources:

Humane Society targets Senate candidate Chris John. KATC.Com, October 2004.

Chris John Supports Extreme Animal Cruelty. Humane USA, October 2004.

Alameda County Rejects Proposed Ban on Exotic Animal Acts

Action for Animals had been pushing for Alameda County to ban wild and exotic animal acts on the premises of the Alameda County Fairgrounds and unincorporated areas of the county. But the county’s Fair Liaison Committee rejected voted to reject the proposal, finding that the Fairgrounds Association’s policies and practices toward exotic animal shows were satisfactory.

About 40 people turned out for a meeting of the two-member Fair Liaison Committee to debate the proposed ban.

Actin for Animals’ leader Eric Mills told the committee that the presence of exotic animal acts involving elephants and tigers posted health and safety risk to fairgoers as well as the animals themselves.

But Tim Koopman, president of the Alameda County Fair Association’s board of directors, said that the fairgrounds’ animal welfare policies were effective and adequate. Koopman told the committee,

We take price in how we handle domestic and feral animals. I think we’re doing the right job.

After the committee announced it had rejected the proposal, Mills told the Contra Costa Times,

I’m going home to take a shower. I feel dirty.

Why didn’t he think of that before the meeting?

Source:

Panel disallows exotic-animal ban. Chris Metinko, Contra Costa Times, May 19, 2004.

Eric Mills Sues First, Establishes Facts Later

Action for Animals activist Eric Mills sued four California school districts, including the Alameda Unified School District, alleging that it was illegal of them to have sent students to October’s Grand National Rodeo at San Francisco’s Cow Palace.

Mills’ lawsuit contends that such field trips violate state laws that prohibit schools from encouraging the inhumane treatment of animals.

Among other problems with his lawsuit, it turns out that the Alameda Unified School District did not send students to the rodeo in question.

Ah, nothing like an animal rights activist making sure he’s got his facts straight before rushing in.

Source:

Rodeo case eyes Island schools that weren’t there. Susan McDonough, Alameda Times, December 20, 2002.

Action for Animals Network Angered by Computer Game

For the past few months a game called
Deer Hunter has topped the software charts. A hunting simulation
which lets the player go trudging through a forest looking for deer, the
game’s received lukewarm reviews from computer gaming magazines but
has generated a following among hunters.

Which, of course, upsets animal
rights activists to no end. Action for Animals Network recently posted
a release on its web site asking people to call Best Buy, a computer chain
in the Midwest, asking it to stop carrying Deer Hunter. In
the words of Action for Animals Network, “please call or write Best
Buy to let them know that this type of game promotes cruelty to animals
and that it certainly isn’t a family game. Ask them to discontinue
selling this item.”

Up until now the only groups calling
for the removal of computer games for lacking “family” values
have been right wing groups, but it looks like at least some animal rights
advocates see this as an important cause as well.

The reader might wonder what would
be next? Will animal rights activists demand an end to the sale of programs
which simulate the dissection of a frogs? Isn’t software like this
exactly what animal rights activists have been asking for — simulated
rather than live hunts? And shouldn’t the Action for Animals Network be required to
produce even a shred of evidence that Deer Hunter promotes
cruelty to animals?

Source:

Action for Animals Network, “Cruel Game,” Press Release, March 1998.