Animal Liberation Front Releases California Deer Herd

The Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for the January 18 release of a heard of deer at a California ranch owned by Gerd Konieczny.

While Konieczny was at a doctor’s appointment, activists cut the 8-foot-high metal fence used to enclose the herd.

In a letter claiming responsibility, the Animal Liberation Front said (emphasis added),

GNK Ranch – owned by former LAPD Sergant Gerd Konieczny – is one of the 3 largest deer farms in California and hosts an on-site deer slaughterhouse.

We believe this to be the first ever deer liberation in the US. Freedom for these creatures – for whom death is a certainty- was a simple and unskilled operation. Hundreds of deer farms operate in this country. We encourage
compassionate people everywhere to locate farms in their area and tear down their walls.

The venison industry remains small. Our hearts go out to victims of the larger problem, the billions of lives we are unable to save – cows, chickens, pigs, mice, rats, and others – casualties of the meat, dairy, vivisection and other
industries of suffering and blood. Their pain is our own.

The part of the letter claming the ranch included a operation at the ranch is simply wrong. According according to the Capital Press, the slaughter operation was blocked in 2002 due to objections raised by animal rights activists and never built.

Nice to see the activists keeping well-informed as usual.

According to the Capital Press, the FBI is involved in the case and the Monterey County Cattleman’s Association has offered a $1,000 reward for information about the perpetrators of the crime.

Source:

Venison farm hit by animal rights group. Judy Bedell, Capital Press, 2005.

Columnist Provides Interesting Look at Animal Rights Activist Ariel Swan Greenspun Gale

Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Jane Ann Morrison recently wrote an interesting look at California animal rights activist Ariel Swan Greenspun Gale.

As Morrison notes, the 23-year-old Gale is a member of the wealthy Las Vegas Greenspun family, and recently purchased a $1 million home in California. When she was arrested on a trespassing and disturbing the piece charges at an animal rights protest, however, she demanded a public defender. The public defender negotiated a plea bargain for her which resulted in a sentence of community service, but when Gale never bothered to show up in court to enter that plea, a bench warrant for her arrest was issued.

Gale has been a part of Last Chance for Animal’s protests against the family of Mitchell Lardner in Monrovia, which this site has covered in detail. Lardner is a manager at Sumitomo Corporation, which has been targeted by animal rights activists due to its ties with Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Protests at Lardner’s home have involved threats and someone chucking a brick in the face of an off-duty police officer that the Lardner’s had hired as a security guard.

Like many activists, Gale is willing to threaten others, but carefully hides for fear of being targeted herself. Morrison writes,

Third, she has no qualms about standing outside a private home chanting the threat: “For the animals we will fight! We know where you sleep at night.” Yet she asked me not to reveal her address. (She said she has been threatened and didn’t want people to know where she lives).

. . .

Gale was one of the protesters who stood outside Lardner’s home May 23 and chanted, “Hey, Mitchell, what you say? How many animals died today?”

As police stood by, one protester yelled, “Your police aren’t always going to be here.” Lest this sound like an empty threat, on May 29 an off-duty police officer hired to protect the Lardner home was struck in the face with a brick, breaking his jaw, said Monrovia police Detective Rob Wilken.

Ah, those ever-compassionate activists.

Source:

Arrogant words and deeds of animal activist beastly. Jane Ann Morrison, Las Vegas Review-Journal, February 3, 2005.

Hudson Valley Foie Gras Prepares for Activists

The Hudson Valley Chronogram recently published an intriguing profile of Hudson Valley Foie Gras — billed as the world’s largest producer of foie gras. With California scheduled to ban foie gras production by 2012, putting Hudson Valley Foie Gras’ competitor Sonoma Foie Gras out of business, the focus of anti-foie gras efforts by animal rights activists will inevitably fall on this New York company.

According to the Chronogram, the business slaughters 2,000 ducks per week during normal operations and reaches upwards of 10,000 ducks per week during the Christmas holiday.

Hudson Valley was one of the foie gras farms featured in animal rights activist Sarahjane Blum’s 16-minute film, Delicacy of Despair, in which Blum trespassed at Hudson Valley and Sonoma Foie Gras. Chronogram reporter Susan Gibbs was surprisingly skeptical of the film going in, however, noting that,

The film is horrifying, and incredibly effective. But my many years in television news has taught me that selective editing can make a bad situation look a thousand times worse. To find out what was really going on at a foie gras farm, I would have to visit one.

If only more journalists were as skeptical of heavily edited animal rights video as Gibbs is. Fortunately, Hudson Valley proprietors Izzy Yanay and Michael Ginor agreed to allow Gibbs to tour their farm and the result is a profile that makes clear this is a slaughter operation, but one that doesn’t quite live up to Blum’s billing has a horror house.

For example, Gibbs comments on a common claim by activists — that the force fed ducks are often too fat to walk,

Blum had told me to be on the lookout for ducks so fat they were unable to walk. All of the ducks I saw walked. They were very fat and very dirty, a fact both Yanay and Blum said was due to a lack of sufficient water for preening. Several of the fattest ducks had green chalk marks on their necks designating them for the next day’s slaughter.

Gibbs also addresses the issue of ducks being accidentally killed in the forced feeding process,

Each of the farm’s 90 handlers is responsible for feeding 350 ducks three times a day. Spending one minute on each bird would make for a 17-and-a-half-hour workday, but most handlers work much faster. Activists claim that over-worked employees don’t have time to be careful with the ducks and sometimes kill them by overfeeding. Yanay denies the charged, pointing out that worker’s monthly bonuses are docked for each dead bird.

Blum’s short film featured shots of isolation cages at Hudson Valley. When Gibbs visited the farm, Yanay told her that, “That was an experiment. It didn’t work.” According to Yanay, the isolation cages have been discontinued. Blum, however, told Gibbs she doesn’t believe Yanay when he says the isolation cages are no longer being used.

Yanay defends foie gras as no more or less cruel than any other form of animal agriculture, and suggests that if activists do succeed in New York as they have in California, it won’t have much long-term impact on his business,

Okay. We are bad people. But what we do wrong is we kill them. We are a farm that produces a product. You see cute little babies coming out of the eggs. We grow them and feed them and then we have to kill them.

. . .

If production is banned in New York, we will take our business to China. We will kill the same number of ducks. No ducks have ever been spared by banning foie gras.

Source:

Fowl feast: Hudson Valley Foie Gras. Susan Gibbs, Chronogram (Hudson Valley), February 2005.

California Activist Groups Form State Association

A number of animal rights groups in California have banded into a new statewide coalition, the California Animal Association, to “represent the interest of animals at the [California] state capitol.”

A press release sent out by the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights announcing the formation of the group said,

After more than a year of planning, CAA was formed to bring a stronger and more cohesive voice for animal protection to Sacramento. Many of the animal welfare and animal rights groups involved in CAA have individually or in small groups worked on legislation to strengthen animal protection laws or to defeat legislation that weakens protections for animals with California.

The members of the coalition include: American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animal Legislative Action Network, Animal Place, Animal Protection Institute, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, California Animal Defense and Anti-Vivisection League, California Lobby for Animal Welfare, Doctors for Kindness to Animals, Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals, Last Chance for Animals, Orange County People for Animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, The Paw Project, United Animal Nations, United Poultry Concerns and Viva! USA.

Source:

Animals gain strong and unprecedented voice in Sacramento. Teri Barnato, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Press Release, January 12, 2005.

California Court Dismisses PETA’s “Happy Cows” Lawsuit

The last time we heard about People for the Ethical Treatment’s lawsuit against the California Milk Producer Advisory Board over that organizations “Happy Cows” advertising campaign, San Francisco Superior Court Judge David Garcia had dismissed the case. Garcia narrowly ruled that the advisory board was protected by sovereign immunity from such lawsuits.

PETA, you might remember, claims that California cows really are not happy, and that claiming they are in ads violates California’s state truth-in-advertising laws.

But PETA insisted on appealing Garcia’s ruling, and this month a Court of Appeal Panel in San Francisco agreed with Garcia, citing precedents including lawsuits dismissed against a University of California Hospital and the state’s Lottery Commission in dismissing the lawsuit.

Instead of filing a lawsuit, the court ruled that PETA has to file a complaint with the state director of Food and Agriculture who is empowered to decide whether or not to hold a hearing about the matter and whether the issue can be forwarded to a district attorney or state attorney general for prosecution.

No word yet on whether PETA will appeal the latest ruling, but don’t be surprised if they do.

Source:

Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, January 12, 2005.

Performing Animal Welfare Society Granted Change-of-Venue for Lawsuit Against It

The Performing Animal Welfare Society was granted a change-of-venue in a lawsuit against it, moving the lawsuit from Calaveras County to Sacramento County. The lawsuit is in response to an earlier lawsuit by PAWS.

In 1999, the group built an animal sanctuary — ARK 2000 — in San Andreas. Neighbors to the ARK 2000 site, John Ham and Kevin Krantz, opposed the construction of the animal sanctuary and took their complaints to the publisher of the Calaveras County Daily News, Frank Eckblom, who published a story in his newspaper about Ham and Krantz’s complaints.

PAWS then sued Ham, Krantz and Eckblom, accusing the three of making false allegations against PAWS and holding the organization up to “public humiliation and contempt” in an effort to derail county and state approval for construction of the animal sanctuary.

A judge through out all of the allegations except one, going to trial with PAWS’ claim that Ham and Krantz had trespassed on PAWS’ property. Krantz was eventually dropped from that part of the lawsuit, and Ham was acquitted of the trespassing charge in August 2004.

Ham and Krantz then turned around and filed a lawsuit charging that PAWS knew there was no basis for its lawsuit and accusing the organization of malicious prosecution.

They are seeking compensatory damages of at least $50,000 along with general and punitive damages and court costs.

Source:

Judge: PAWS case will move to Sacramento County. The Record, January 7, 2005.

Change of venue in PAWS lawsuit. Vanessa Turner, Caleveras Enterprise, January 10, 2005.

Most of lawsuit claims by animal welfare group fail. Ron DeLacy, Modesto Bee, September 17, 2002.

Lode judge rules against PAWS in suit. Francis P. Garland, The Record, August 27, 2004.