Owner of Cow Used in Fundraiser Says PETA Wrong about Mistreatment Allegations

The owner of a cow used as part of a fundraiser for Florida Southern College called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ claims that the cow was mistreated are “ridiculous.”

The animal was used in a game of Cow Bingo, where participants bought $10 tickets corresponding to parts of a field where the cow would heed the call of nature. PETA claimed that the cow was fed laxatives and gave birth shortly after the event. The cow’s owner, Mike Hiestand, says neither of those claims is true.

“The cow did not give birth,” Hiestand told the Lakeland Ledger. “Why would I take a chance on hurting a calf and feed a cow laxatives? Some of the kids asked me if I could use laxatives to make the game move along faster, but I refused.”

Hiestand also disputed claims by PETA’s Amy Rhodes that the cow was stressed by the event. “If she was stressed, she would have torn down the pen,” Hiestand said. “She doesn’t know the difference — whether you take her to a pasture or the Lakeland Square Mall.”

Hiestand challenged PETA up or shut up. “I’d like them to prove there was any mistreatment of the cow,” Hiestand told the Lakeland Ledger. “My family spends more money on that cow than some people spend on their kids.”

Whatever you do, Mr. Heistand, just do not let PETA “rescue” your cow. Animals given that treatment by PETA do not tend to live long enough to be stressed out.

Source:

Owner: Cow was treated fine. Erik Ortiz, The Lakeland Ledger, February 17, 2002.

PETA: Laughter Stresses Out Cows

On Feb. 12 I wrote about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals complaining about a game of cow bingo organized as a fundraiser by students at Florida Southern College. A large field was marked off into a grid, and prizes awarded based on where the cow heeded the call of nature. PETA claimed that the cow was fed laxatives, a claim with Florida Southern College denied. Now, PETA is back for round 2 with FSC.

PETA’s Amy Rhodes complains that, “All they [FSC] did was deny the cow was fed laxatives. And they quoted [to the effect that the game was not cruel] someone who wasn’t even there .”

Hmmm. PETA complains that the cow was fed laxatives and when FSC denies that, PETA whines, “is that all you’ve got.” Rhodes should either put up or shut up by providing some sort of evidence that FSC is wrong on this point.

As to whether or not having a crowd watch a cow wander around a field is cruel or not, Rhodes maintains that it is, claiming her initial complaints were misunderstood. According to Rhodes,

I was not talking about the cow being embarrassed. That’s just silly, but I would assume that she was stressed in that situation. … I am told there were a hundred people laughing at (the cow), some children. You don’t teach children to ridicule animals or degrade them because they may do the same to people. It’s a dangerous message to send to children.

Perhaps she has a point — it might be better to laugh at and ridicule Rhodes for offering up such a ludicrous argument. It’s interesting, though, that Rhodes criticizes FSC for asking a local SPCA official who wasn’t at the event about whether or not it was cruel, but then herself launches into an argument prefaced by “I would assume that she was stressed.” What a convenient sort of hypocrisy that is.

I would assume in that situation that Rhodes doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Source:

PETA still critical of college’s use of a cow. Erik Ortiz, The Lakeland Ledger (Florida), February 14, 2002.

PETA Mad about Cow Bingo

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recently attacked Florida Southern College for a fundraiser held by students that included a game of cow bingo, which PETA maintains is inherently cruel.

FSC held a number of fund raising events on January 16, 2002 to raise money for the school’s sports teams. One of the fundraisers was a game of cow bingo. A field was divided into a bingo grid and prizes were awarded, as the Lakeland Ledger delicately put it, “based on where the cow heeded the call of nature.”

PETA fired offer a letter claiming that the vent was cruel because, “We are told that the cow’s ‘owner’ force-fed the cow a laxative in order to make the ‘game’ move along faster.”

Shari Szabo, a spokeswoman for FSC, said this was not true. “A couple from Polk County volunteered their cow to be used, and they were there the entire time,” Szabo said. “They would never have allowed the cow to be given laxatives.”

Not that this fact would make any difference to the animal rights group. As PETA’s Amy Rhodes told the Lakeland Ledger,

Surely you would agree that subjecting an animal to the stress, confusion and fear of such a demeaning and silly ‘game’ does nothing to compliment the school and its importance to the community. In fact, treating animals with such callous disregard sends the message that it is acceptable to make a public spectacle of another living being — a dangerous message for an otherwise reputable school to send to area children.

Yeah, this writer cannot think of anything more cruel than watching a cow wander around a field waiting for it to defecate. There’s probably a separate level of hell reserved just for those guilty of such a horrendous transgression.

You just know at some point PETA is going to go after bird watchers for infringing the privacy rights of our feathered friends.

Source:

Cow bingo protest is no moo-t point. Erik Ortiz, The Lakeland Ledger, February 2, 2002.

Statement by Dr. P. Michael Conn on Animal Rights Intimidation

Back in October 2001 I wrote an article about testimony that Dr. Michael Conn gave during hearings held by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is investigating animal rights terrorism. Conn was nice enough to allow me to reproduce here, in its entirety, the statement Conn made to the task force. It makes for very chilling reading.

Statement by P. Michael Conn
26 SEPT, 2001
Before the City Council, Portland, Oregon

Your Honor and Members of the Council:

My name is Dr. Michael Conn. I work as Special Assistant to the President of Oregon Health and Sciences University and as Associate Director of one of its Institutes, the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center. I also have a research program that has contributed to the development of treatments for breast and prostate cancer, endometriosis and problems of infertility.

Because of what I have to tell you today, it is important that you understand that my own
research program does not currently use animals, although we have in the past. Like most
Americans, I understand the value of animal research in basic science — so important for
development of treatments for both human and animal disease. Therapies for diabetes, AIDS,
Alzheimer’s, cancer, along with antibiotics, vaccines and surgical techniques — to name just a few things — all had origins in animal research. I have spoken and written about the importance of humane animal research and how it benefits humans and animals.

Recently, I was invited to visit the University of South Florida, located in Tampa, Florida. Shortly before this trip, I was alerted that a mid-west activist had announced my visit to Florida on an e-mail listserve. This person, who, I later learned and I am quoting here–, “believes we must be willing to do whatever it takes to gain animals freedom,” even if that means the killing of a so-called “animal abuser,” solicited letters to the university administration and to my academic colleagues. I also received an email from the educational coordinator of Florida Voices for Animals detailing my “ignominy,” and telling me that I was unwelcome in Tampa. I responded, explaining that although I support the humane use of animals in medical research, I do not, myself, use animals in my research projects.

Let me step out of the sequence of events just for a moment. One of the largest animal extremist organizations in the world, “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,”– PeTA– subsequently picked up on the midwest and Florida postings and created a page for me on their website, also soliciting e-mails and letters. I learned that PeTA, which has helped fund one of the mid-west activist’s advertising campaigns, is focusing not on my own work but, on the fact that I work for an institution that conducts animal research. PeTA never mentions, however, that my institution is fully accredited and compliant with all federal and state laws.

Back to the sequence of events: My plane was met at the Tampa airport by animal extremists who tried to engage and film me. Exercising their rights, under a Florida open meetings law, they were present at virtually all of my scheduled meetings with USF committees. Some stood outside meeting room doors, distributing fliers that made outlandish claims and lobbying attendees.

Others, wearing t-shirts that said, “keep primate tester Dr. P. M. Conn out of USF,” made
derogatory comments. Still others asked me why I was lying about using primates in my program — a question that a sympathetic faculty member turned into an accusation, insisting in obscene language that I was lying about not using animals in my current research program.

In one meeting, news media with video cameras burst into the room. They never interviewed me, choosing to accept unchallenged the claims made by the extremists and identifying me simply as a “vivisector,” a term of opprobrium used by extremists.

The campus was plastered with handbills, full of absurdly incorrect information. There was no way for me to reach out and dialogue with those who were responsible for this campaign of mis-information. Naively, I did try on one occasion to talk with one of the extremists, but he showed no interest in meaningful discussion.

I received threatening calls at the hotel and knocks on the door in the middle of the night. I never knew who was going to be coming through the door of a meeting room. This put me in a constant state of fear to the degree that, at one point, when a casually dressed faculty member, whom I did not know, entered from the door behind me, I jumped out of the way in fright, later, apologizing to her.

It got so bad that an armed state police officer was assigned to look after me.

The constant presence of an armed guard made me recognize that I was a “sitting duck” to
anyone with a weapon. At one point, after being accused of telling lies, cursed at, and in constant fear for my well being all the while trying to meaningfully address the academic concerns and questions of my USF colleagues I considered returning home to Portland for reasons of personal safety. Though my nerves were shot, I decided to remain in this incredibly stressful situation for the planned two days.

At a little after 4 a.m. on the day of my departure, the police officer met me in the lobby of the hotel, escorted me to a taxi and followed me for a few miles before waving goodbye and turning off to another road. I thought it was over, and with a tremendous sense of relief I checked in and passed through security. Suddenly, as I was about to step onto an escalator, I became aware that some of the extremists — muttering “we came to say goodbye,” and “we were afraid we missed you” — had physically surrounded me. I managed to step aside so that I could descend the escalator several steps behind them. An alert gate agent, noting the message on their t-shirts, phoned airport police, and I was quickly boarded onto an empty plane.

I was to learn, however, that it still wasn’t over. Now, back in Portland, animal extremists have shouted at me from the road above at my home, and I have found that someone has been ransacking my garbage.

All this terrorism is new to me. Remember, I do not work with animals. I work at a university that does, a university, I remind you, that is fully compliant with all laws and measures up to the highest standards of animal care.

I believe that the events I have recounted were meant “to terrorize,” a verb that Webster defines as “to coerce by filling with terror as by the use or threat of violence.” But some animal extremists say, “We do not use violence. We demonstrate and destroy property, but we never injure or kill persons.” What are we to think of that?

Maybe we should ask the four scientists at my institution who received letters armed with razor blades set to cut the hand of the opener — I think that they would call that the use of violence.

Maybe we should ask the center administrators who have received anonymous telephone calls and unsigned mail, and e-mails, which all but threatened them with death — the callers or writers expressing such wishes as that the scientists soon suffer in hell. Even if these communications carefully stopped short of illegal death threats, the administrators felt the force of their violence.

Or maybe we should ask the scientist at another University who has been warned that his
children’s pictures would be put up on the internet — hostages, in other words — until he stops research on animals. Surely he feels this as both a threat and an experience of violence.

The leaders of the animal extremist movement say that they are non-violent in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. They point out that unlike some of their
colleagues in England, who recently took a baseball bat to the head of a researcher, they haven’t physically assaulted or killed anyone — at least, not yet.

But that fact doesn’t qualify them as non-violent, or put them in league with Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks. Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks appealed to the consciences of their adversaries; animal extremists, on the other hand, bully and intimidate. Gandhi and King and Rosa Parks chose to suffer themselves; animal extremists, on the other hand, set out to inflict suffering on us. Gandhi and King allowed themselves to be arrested for their cause, while animal terrorists set fires in the night, phone anonymously, send unsigned e-mails and post outright lies and half-truths on their web sites.

A little over one year ago, the FBI found my name and home address written on a file card in the home of the former national spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front. Mr. Rosebraugh has been arrested for trespassing at the primate center, publishes a web site on how to make firebombs and distributes a video called “Igniting the Revolution,” which urges people to burn homes and businesses.

You can be assured that when I learned of the FBI discovery, I felt not just the threat of violence, but something more, something that violated my person, something that felt very much like violence. Most certainly I was then, as I was in Florida last month, a target of terrorists.

Painful as it is to be in the cross hairs of terrorists, neither my colleagues nor I will bow to their force or be deflected from our course of discovery that leads to cures of human and animal disease. I challenged those who taunted me in Florida to tell the parents of a critically-ill child that research is not important. The only time these terrorists did not follow me was when I passed through the Cancer ward at Florida’s Moffitt hospital. Go figure.

I am pleased to answer any questions.

How Animal Rights Activists Try to Intimidate Researchers: The Testimony of Dr. Michael Conn

Steve Duin wrote an excellent op-ed for The Oregonian at the end of September which talked about the epidemic of animal rights terrorism. Duin describes chilling testimony given by Dr. Michael Conn during hearings held by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is trying to coordinate efforts at dealing with terrorism from political extremists, including radical pro-lifers and animal rights extremists.

Conn, the associate director of the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, testified about flying to Florida in August 2001 for a job interview at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

Conn described how Gary Yourofsky posted details of his trip on the Internet — the same Yourofsky who in July told the Toledo Blade that he would “unequivocally support” the killing of an “animal abuser.”

Animal rights protesters were waiting for Conn at the airport when he arrived, and harassed him in his hotel room with threatening calls. As he was preparing to leave the airport for his flight back to Oregon, Conn described animal rights extremists “physically surrounding” him on the escalator, telling him, “We came to say goodbye.”

Conn testified that, “I felt unsafe the whole time I was there. I was an easy target.”

Source:

The evolution from landmarks to land mines. Steve Duin, The Oregonian, September 27, 2001.

Animal Rights Foundation of Florida Protests at Gunther Gebel-Williams Funeral

Eight members of the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida showed up to protest at the funeral of renowned circus performer Gunther Gebel-Williams.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported that the group was led by Heather Lischin of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and carried signs with slogans such as “Gunther, take your whips and bullhorn with you, RIP.”

Lischin wore black and said, “We’re out here mourning for the animals who’ve died at the hands of Gunther and Ringling Bros.”

A friend of Gebel-Williams wrote a letter to the Herald-Tribune saying,

If you have a problem with animals performing in a circus ring, protest outside the arena, not at the funeral of a man who was not only a performer, but a husband, father, and grandfather as well. Shame on them for not having the decency and common courtesy to let his friends and family celebrate his life and grieve his death without having to endure their negative presence as we left.

Asking common decency from animal rights activists seems to be asking for a lot these days. On the brighter side, perhaps ARFF can now get together with the only other person I have ever heard stoop low enough to protest at a funeral — Fred Phelps of God Hates Fags infamy. Lischin’s sure managed to get her group in with some mighty fine company there.

Source:

Animal-rights supporters picket. By Thomas Becnel, Sarasota Herald Tribune, July 24, 2001.

Animal-rights protest insulting. Shelley Broome, Letter to the editor, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, July 28, 2001.