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.

California Supreme Court Refuses to Hear PETA’s “Happy Cows” Appeal

In April, the California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals of its lawsuit against the California Milk Producers Advisory Board.

PETA filed that lawsuit in December 2002 arguing that the board’s marketing campaign constituted false advertising under California law.

The board used the slogan, “Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California.” PETA’s lawsuit maintained that far from being happy, California dairy cows live a miserable existence.

Both a judge and an appeals court panel rejected the lawsuit on the ground that, as a government agency, the California Milk Producers Advisory Board was immune from this sort of lawsuit.

PETA appealed the appeals court panel ruling to the California Supreme Court, which denied without comment PETA’s request for a review of the case.

The full text of the appellate court panel’s decision in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals vs. California Milk Producers Advisory Board can be read here.

Source:

State justices refuse PETA a hearing on the life of cows. Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, April 21, 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.

Convicted Eco-terrorist Receives 8 Year Sentence

In April, a judge sentenced William Cottrell, 24, to 8 years in prison and ordered him to pay $3.5 million for his part in a 2003 arson at an automobile dealership.

In November 2004, Cottrell was convicted on 8 of 9 counts related to the arsons. The jury acquitted Cottrell of the most serious charge, use of a destructive device during a crime of violence, that would have carried a 30-year minimum sentence.

Cottrell spray-painted slogans such as “Fat Lazy Americans”, “No Respect for Earth”, and “SUV=Terrorism” but claimed that two accomplices, Tyler Johnson and Michie Oe actually committed the arsons. Johnson and Oe are currently wanted fugitives.

At his trial, Cottrell’s lawyers tried to mount a defense based on Cottrell’s alleged autism, but were prevented from doing so by the trial judge, and an appellate court rejected a request for a new trial on that grounds after Cottrell’s conviction.

Cottrell’s defense tried the same tactic at sentencing, asking for U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner to sentence Cottrell to the five-year mandatory minimum because Cottrell’s autism impaired his ability to understand his actions.

Klausner rejected that line of reasoning saying that Cottrell’s high intelligence indicated he was more, not less likely, to understand the consequences of his actions,

What a talent to have wasted. There’s only one person to blame for that, and I’m sure Mr. Cottrell understands that it’s him.

Since there is no parole for federal prisoners, Cottrell will serve the full eight years minus credit for time already served.

Source:

Calif. student gets 8 years for SUV vandalism. Reuters, April 18, 2005.

California Assembly Bill 1587 – Ban on Killing Animals With Wood Chippers

BILL NUMBER: AB 1587	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 20, 2005 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 7, 2005

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Saldana

FEBRUARY 22, 2005

An act to add Section 598e to the Penal Code, relating to crimes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1587, as amended, Saldana. Farmed Animal Reform Act. Existing law generally regulates the slaughter of agricultural animals. This bill would provide that , notwithstanding any other provision of law, that it is unlawful to kill or to attempt to kill any cow or bull, calf, horse, mule, sheep, swine, goat, fallow deer, or poultry by burning, burying, grinding, drowning, rapid freezing, or suffocation , as specified . This bill would also provide that these provisions may be enforced by a peace officer, humane officer, or animal control officer. This bill would provide that any person or entity that violates these provisions shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation, $1,000 for each day that the violation continues, and criminal prosecution. Because this bill would create a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 598e is added to the Penal Code, to read: 598e. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for any person to kill or to attempt to kill any cow or bull, calf, horse, mule, sheep, swine, goat, fallow deer, or poultry by any of the following methods: (A) Burning. (B) Burying. (C) Drowning. (D) Grinding. (E) Rapid freezing. (F) Suffocation. (2) To be lawful, any method of slaughter employed shall be generally accepted by the veterinary profession as reliable, appropriate to the species of animal upon which it is employed, and capable of producing loss of consciousness and death as rapidly and painlessly as possible. A suffering or incapacitated animal shall either receive veterinary care or be immediately and humanely killed.

(b) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) "Burning" means killing or attempting to kill an animal through the use of fire or other heat source. (2) "Burying" means killing or attempting to kill an animal by covering it with dirt, or other animals or matter, in order to cause death by asphyxiation. (3) "Drowning" means killing or attempting to kill an animal by submerging it in liquid, in order to cause death by asphyxiation. (4) "Grinding" means killing or attempting to kill an animal

by maceration or dismemberment. with a machine not intended to be used with or on animals, including, but not limited to, a wood chipper. (5) "Rapid freezing" means killing or attempting to kill an animal by causing immediate hypothermia. (6) "Suffocation" means killing or attempting to kill an animal by restricting its intake of oxygen in order to cause death by asphyxiation. using a plastic bag or by piling other animals or items on top of the animal so that the animal is unable to intake the requisite amount of oxygen necessary to survive. (c) A peace officer, humane officer for the humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, as defined in Section 14502 of the Corporations Code, or an animal control officer, as defined in Section 830.9 of the Penal Code, may enforce these provisions. (d) Any person or entity that violates this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day that the violation continues, which shall be payable to the local agency initiating the enforcement of this section to offset any related costs. (e) In addition to the penalties specified in subdivision (d), a person or entity that violates this section shall be subject to the penalty specified in Section 19440 of the Food and Agricultural Code and may be prosecuted by the district attorney of the county, or the city attorney of the city, in which the violation occurred. SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

California Considers Ban on Ear Cropping

A bill is currently in the California State Assembly that, if it becomes law, would make cropping the ears of dogs illegal in that state.

Ear cropping is essentially cosmetic surgery for dogs. The dog is anesthetized and then its ears are surgically altered to make them stand up erect instead of flopping to the side.

Animal rights activists oppose the surgery as unnecessary, painful and placing the dogs at risk of complications. Dog breeders defend the procedure as reducing the risk of ear infection in some cases and producing more aesthetically pleasing dogs.

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights supports the bill, with Pam Runquist saying in a press release,

When this issue came before the Legislature last year, there were dozens of dog breeders wearing buttons with the slogan, “It’s Our Choice.” We need to let the Legislature know that it’s not the dog’s choice to have a portion of their ears amputated simply for aesthetic preference of the caregiver. (Note: In response to concerns from dog breeders, this year’s bill clarifies that it is still legal for dogs with cropped ears to be shown, sold, adopted or reside within the state. Only the procedure of cropping a dog’s ears will be illegal).

Of course, much the same argument could be made about neutering dogs, which is certainly not the dog’s choice and which can cause pain and have potential side effects.

Frankly, I find ear cropping and tail docking to be a bit stupid, but cruel? No more so than other surgical alterations of dogs such as neutering.

The full text of AB 481 can be read here.

Source:

Help ban ear cropping in California. Press Release, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, March 31, 2005.