S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________
4306
2005-2006 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
February 9, 2005
___________
Introduced by M. of A. ORTIZ, ESPAILLAT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of
A. ROBINSON, SEMINERIO, TOWNS -- read once and referred to the Commit-
tee on Governmental Operations
AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to creating the office of
advocate for wildlife
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. The executive law is amended by adding a new article 49-C
2 to read as follows:
3 ARTICLE 49-C
4 OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE
5 SECTION 998. DEFINITIONS.
6 998-A. OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE.
7 998-B. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICE.
8 998-C. ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE.
9 998-D. ASSISTANCE OF OTHER STATE AGENCIES.
10 998-E. GRANTS OR GIFTS.
11 998-F. REPORTS.
12 S 998. DEFINITIONS. AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE:
13 1. "ADVOCACY" MEANS THE ACT OF PROMOTING AND ENCOURAGING THE
14 PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
15 TATS.
16 2. "COUNCIL" MEANS THE ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE CREATED BY
17 SECTION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-C OF THIS ARTICLE.
18 3. "OFFICE" MEANS THE OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE CREATED BY
19 SECTION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-A OF THIS ARTICLE.
20 4. "WILDLIFE" MEANS ALL ANIMAL LIFE EXISTING IN A WILD STATE IN THE
21 STATE OF NEW YORK INCLUDING "FISH" AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH A OF SUBDIVI-
22 SION ONE, "GAME" AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION TWO AND "SHELLFISH" AS
23 DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
24 CONSERVATION LAW.
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
{ } is old law to be omitted.
LBD06532-01-5
A. 4306 2
1 5. "ADVOCATE" MEANS THE STATE ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE APPOINTED PURSUANT
2 TO SECTION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT-A OF THIS ARTICLE.
3 6. "STATE AGENCY" MEANS ANY DEPARTMENT, BOARD, BUREAU, COMMISSION,
4 DIVISION, OFFICE, COUNCIL OR AGENCY OF THE STATE, OR A PUBLIC BENEFIT
5 CORPORATION OR PUBLIC AUTHORITY AT LEAST ONE OF WHOSE MEMBERS IS
6 APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR.
7 S 998-A. OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE. 1. THERE IS HEREBY CREATED
8 WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AN OFFICE OF ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE.
9 2. THE HEAD OF SUCH OFFICE SHALL BE THE STATE ADVOCATE FOR WILDLIFE,
10 WHO SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND
11 CONSENT OF THE SENATE, AND SHALL HOLD OFFICE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
12 GOVERNOR. THE ADVOCATE SHALL RECEIVE AN ANNUAL SALARY TO BE FIXED BY THE
13 GOVERNOR WITHIN THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE THEREFOR BY APPROPRIATION. THE
14 ADVOCATE SHALL ALSO BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES
15 ACTUALLY AND NECESSARILY INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS OR HER
16 DUTIES.
17 3. THE ADVOCATE MAY APPOINT SUCH OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, CONSULT-
18 ANTS AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES AS HE OR SHE MAY DEEM NECESSARY, PRESCRIBE
19 THEIR DUTIES, FIX THEIR COMPENSATION AND PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
20 THEIR EXPENSES WITHIN THE AMOUNTS AVAILABLE THEREFOR BY APPROPRIATION.
21 S 998-B. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICE. THE PRIMARY TASKS OF THE
22 OFFICE SHALL BE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF WILDLIFE, AND ASSURING, ON BEHALF
23 OF THE STATE, THAT PROPER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THE NEED TO PROTECT,
24 CONSERVE AND PRESERVE WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS. TO CARRY OUT SUCH
25 TASKS THE OFFICE SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWER AND DUTIES:
26 1. TO ADVISE AND ASSIST THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE AND STATE AGEN-
27 CIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF STATE POLICIES DESIGNED TO PROTECT, CONSERVE
28 AND PRESERVE WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
29 2. TO STUDY THE OPERATION OF LAWS RELATING TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND
30 RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE AND STATE AGENCIES NEW LAWS
31 AND AMENDMENTS OF EXISTING LAWS FOR WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND TO COMMENT
32 ON NEW LAWS AND AMENDMENTS OF EXISTING LAWS PROPOSED BY STATE AGENCIES,
33 POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE, THE LEGISLATURE, THE GOVERNOR OR
34 OTHERS;
35 3. TO COOPERATE WITH STATE AGENCIES TO ASSURE THAT POLICIES AND
36 PROGRAMS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR HAVE AUTHORIZED ARE
37 PROVIDED IN A MANNER WHICH BEST SERVES THE GOALS OF PROTECTION, CONSER-
38 VATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
39 4. TO INITIATE, INTERVENE IN, OR PARTICIPATE IN ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
40 ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AGENCY OR IN ANY COURT
41 OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHERE THE ADVOCATE
42 DEEMS SUCH INITIATION, INTERVENTION OR PARTICIPATION TO BE NECESSARY OR
43 APPROPRIATE, FOR THE PROMOTION, PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE
44 AND WILDLIFE HABITATS AND TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF WILDLIFE BEFORE
45 FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AND AGENCIES;
46 5. TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE SEVENTY-EIGHT OF THE CIVIL
47 PRACTICE LAW AND RULES FROM THE ACTIONS OF ANY STATE AGENCY AFFECTING
48 WILDLIFE OR WILDLIFE HABITATS;
49 6. TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, RESEARCH, STUDIES AND ANALYSES OF
50 MATTERS AFFECTING THE INTERESTS OF WILDLIFE WITHIN NEW YORK STATE;
51 7. TO REVIEW, COMMENT, AND REPORT ON THE ADEQUACY OF, AND PARTICIPATE
52 IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS PREPARED BY OR
53 SUBMITTED TO ANY STATE AGENCY OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE;
54 8. TO COOPERATE WITH AND ASSIST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER STATE
55 AGENCIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE IN THE CARRYING OUT OF
A. 4306 3
1 THEIR LEGAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS AFFECT-
2 ING THE INTERESTS OF WILDLIFE;
3 9. TO STIMULATE COMMUNITY INTEREST IN THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND
4 PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS AND TO PROMOTE PUBLIC
5 AWARENESS OF ACTIONS BEING PROPOSED OR TAKEN BY STATE AGENCIES, POLI-
6 TICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE AND PRIVATE PARTIES WHICH AFFECT WILD-
7 LIFE OR WILDLIFE HABITATS AS WELL AS RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR THE
8 PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
9 TATS;
10 10. TO ADVISE AND ASSIST POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE IN THE
11 DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVA-
12 TION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
13 11. TO PROVIDE A STATEWIDE INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SERVICE TO REFER
14 PERSONS SEEKING ASSISTANCE WITH REGARD TO THE PROTECTION, PRESERVATION
15 AND CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE TO THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
16 OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR TO ENTITIES PROVIDING SERVICES
17 THROUGH CONTRACTS WITH STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OR AGEN-
18 CIES;
19 12. TO COORDINATE THE ACTIVITIES OF ALL STATE AGENCIES PERFORMING
20 FUNCTIONS AFFECTING WILDLIFE AND TO SERVE AS A CLEARINGHOUSE FOR INFOR-
21 MATION RELATING TO THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF
22 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
23 13. TO ADVISE AND ASSIST EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE IN THE
24 DEVELOPMENT OF WILDLIFE EDUCATION PROGRAMS AS WELL AS COURSES OF STUDY
25 FOR PERSONS ENGAGED IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROGRAMS FOR THE PROTECTION,
26 CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS WELL
27 AS TO COORDINATE THE RESEARCH AND OTHER RESOURCES OF SUCH EDUCATIONAL
28 INSTITUTION TO SERVE THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF
29 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT;
30 14. TO ADVISE AND ASSIST THE GOVERNOR, THE LEGISLATURE, STATE AGEN-
31 CIES, AND PRIVATE SECTOR ENTITIES IN THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
32 INITIATIVES TO INCREASE THE PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF
33 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS;
34 15. TO CONDUCT OR CAUSE TO BE CONDUCTED STUDIES RELATING TO THE
35 PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
36 TATS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE;
37 16. TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS, WITHIN THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE THEREFOR BY
38 APPROPRIATION, WITH INDIVIDUALS, ASSOCIATIONS, COOPERATIONS AND GOVERN-
39 MENTAL AGENCIES IN THE EXERCISE OF ANY OF ITS POWERS OR THE PERFORMANCE
40 OF ANY OF ITS DUTIES; AND
41 17. TO STUDY, DEVELOP, ENCOURAGE AND PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR NON-LETHAL
42 MANAGEMENT OF WILDLIFE.
43 S 998-C. ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE. 1. THERE SHALL BE WITHIN
44 THE OFFICE AN ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE ADVOCATE CONSISTING OF FIFTEEN
45 MEMBERS TO BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR. IN MAKING SUCH APPOINTMENTS,
46 THE GOVERNOR SHALL GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION TO REPRESENTATION FOR THE
47 MAJOR REGIONS OF THE STATE. IN ADDITION TO THE FIFTEEN APPOINTED
48 MEMBERS, THE COUNCIL SHALL INCLUDE, EX-OFFICIO, NON-VOTING MEMBERS, THE
49 COMMISSIONERS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS, ENVIRON-
50 MENTAL CONSERVATION, EDUCATION AND HEALTH. THE GOVERNOR SHALL DESIGNATE
51 ONE OF THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO SERVE AS CHAIRPERSON AND
52 ONE OF THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL TO SERVE AS VICE-CHAIRPER-
53 SON, AND EACH SHALL SO SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE GOVERNOR. THE COUN-
54 CIL SHALL MEET FROM TIME TO TIME AT THE CALL OF THE CHAIRPERSON OR THE
55 ADVOCATE.
A. 4306 4
1 2. ALL APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL BE APPOINTED TO SERVE
2 FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT OF THE MEMBERS FIRST
3 APPOINTED, FIVE SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR ONE YEAR TERMS AND FIVE SHALL BE
4 APPOINTED FOR TWO YEAR TERMS. ANY MEMBER APPOINTED TO FILL A VACANCY
5 CREATED OTHERWISE THAN BY EXPIRATION OF TERM SHALL BE APPOINTED FOR THE
6 UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE MEMBER HE OR SHE IS APPOINTED TO SUCCEED.
7 3. THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL SERVE WITHOUT SALARY,
8 BUT APPOINTED MEMBERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THEIR ACTU-
9 AL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL
10 DUTIES. 11 4. THE COUNCIL SHALL ADVISE THE ADVOCATE WITH RESPECT TO THE
12 PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABI-
13 TATS.
14 S 998-D. ASSISTANCE OF OTHER STATE AGENCIES. TO EFFECTUATE THE
15 PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE, THE ADVOCATE MAY REQUEST FROM ANY STATE AGENCY
16 OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, AND THE SAME ARE AUTHORIZED
17 TO PROVIDE SUCH ASSISTANCE, SERVICES, FACILITIES AND DATA AS WILL ENABLE
18 THE OFFICE TO CARRY OUT ITS FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES. INFORMATION,
19 BOOKS, RECORDS OR DATA WHICH ARE CONFIDENTIAL AS PROVIDED BY LAW SHALL
20 BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL BY THE ADVOCATE AND ANY LIMITATIONS ON THE RELEASE
21 THEREOF, IMPOSED BY LAW UPON THE PARTY FURNISHING THE INFORMATION,
22 BOOKS, RECORDS OR DATA SHALL APPLY TO THE ADVOCATE.
23 S 998-E. GRANTS OR GIFTS. THE ADVOCATE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
24 GOVERNOR, MAY ACCEPT AS AGENT OF THE STATE ANY GIFT, GRANT, DEVISE OR
25 BEQUEST, WHETHER CONDITIONAL OR UNCONDITIONAL (NOTWITHSTANDING THE
26 PROVISIONS OF SECTION ELEVEN OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW), INCLUDING FEDER-
27 AL GRANTS OR OTHER FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, FOR ANY OF THE PURPOSES OF THIS
28 ARTICLE. ANY MONIES SO RECEIVED MAY BE EXPENDED BY THE OFFICE TO EFFEC-
29 TUATE ANY PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE, SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS AS TO
30 APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES AND AUDIT AS ARE PRESCRIBED FOR STATE MONIES
31 APPROPRIATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.
32 S 998-F. REPORTS. THE OFFICE SHALL SUBMIT AN ANNUAL REPORT TO THE
33 GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE.
34 S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
35 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.
.SO DOC A 4306 *END* BTXT 2005
Tag: New York
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.
Animal Liberation Front Threatens Physical Harm to Partygoers
We’ve all heard the nonsense rhetoric from the activists — Animal Liberation Front is non-violent since burning down homes and research facilities doesn’t count as violence (in these folks’ ethical guide, a white racist burning down a black church is committing a nonviolent act of protest). But the North American Liberation Press Office issued a press release in December that contained a clear intent to physically harm — perhaps even kill — human beings.
The press release concerned a planned holiday party by Forest Laboratories to be held December 10, 2004. The press release noted that Animal Defense League – Long Island planned a protest outside the Hunting Towne House, where the holiday party was to be held.
The press release also republished what it claimed was a communique from the Animal Liberation Front that said (emphasis added),
Cancel the 12/10 Forest Labs party or syrup of ipecac and diarrhea inducing agents will appear in your catering provisions beginning Friday afternoon. We will target all town house events this weekend. All additives will be non-lethal and the symptoms non-permanent, however: will be very disruptive to town house functions. Cancel the Forest Labs party. *The A.L.F.*
Non-permanent? Spiking food with ipecac in this way could be potentially fatal.
Ipecac syrup used to be widely recommended in cases of accidental poisoning, especially among children, because it can induce vomiting. In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics reverse that recommendation, after studies showed ipecac was simply not effective and had a number of potential problems (mainly that it is sometimes abused by people with eating disorders).
Spiking food with ipecac would be extremely dangerous, because it would be impossible to control how much ipecac any given person was exposed to. Exposure to large doses of ipecac can cause respiratory difficulties, fast or irregular heartbeat, seizures and pneumonia. If, for some reason, the ipecac is not vomited, it can cause heart problems, permanent heart damage and even death.
There’s a reason ipecac is clearly labeled that it is not to be administered without first consulting a poison control center, emergency room or physician.
There is simply nothing you can spike food with that is not potentially hazardous and even deadly to some subpopulation of people. Apparently the possibility that someone might be seriously injured or even killed in such a stunt is simply not as important as the animals to the ALF or the North American Animal Liberation Press Office.
Non-violent my ass.
Source:
Animal Testing Firm to be Targeted on Long Island; Animal Liberation Front Issues Threat to Partygoers. Press Release, North American Animal Liberation Press Office, December 8, 2004.
Bob Barker Gives More Money to Establish Animal Rights Law Programs
Bob Barker was busy in December endowing yet more animal rights law programs at major universities.
Barker gave $1 million each to both the Duke University School of Law and Columbia Law School to create animal rights law programs.
At Duke Law School, according to a press release,
The Barker fund will support teaching at Duke Law School in the growing field of animal rights law, including opportunities for students to work for course credit on cases involving compliance with state animal cruelty laws and other forms of animal rights advocacy. North Carolina is the only state that allows individuals and citizens’ organizations to seek injunctions against violators of the state’s animal cruelty laws.
At Columbia, according to the law school,
Mr. Barker’s gift will support current initiatives into animal rights law, as well as open up possibilities in which the Law School will draw on its wealth of resources and contacts to develop future endeavors.
During the 2005-06 academic year, for example, the gift will be used to enlist the services of David Wolfson ’93, a partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, to teach a class on animal rights. Mr. Wolfson represents, on a pro bono basis, groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. He also has published on animal rights law and has taught classes on the subject at several law schools.
There was also speculation that Barker may donate a similar amount to the University of Michigan Law School.
Sources:
Bob Barker awards Columbia Law School $1 million to support the study of animal rights. Press Release, Columbia Law School, December 2004.
TV Personality Bob Barker Donates to Duke Law School for Animal Rights Law Study. Press Release, Duke Law School, December 6, 2004.
Animal rights law program may expand. Laura Van Hyfte, The Michigan Daily, January 10, 2005.
Hunters vs. Animal Rights Groups
New York Post columnist Ken Moran hits the jackpot in the opening of a recent column,
For years, hunters quietly have helped the needy by donating part of their harvest to food banks throughout New York and the rest of the country.
On the other side of the coin, you have animal rights groups like PETA and HSUS who raise millions of dollars, most of which is spent on salaries for officers and publicity for their organizations.
You think?
Moran notes that over the past four years, two New York groups — the Venison Donation Coalition and SCI’s Sportsmen Against Hunger — have donated more than 250,000 pounds of venison that have been distributed through New York’s Food Bank network. That’s about 1 million servings of venison, according to Moran.
Of course animal rights activists are free to disagree. For example, I can imagine a PETA activist explaining that PETA’s video of half-naked women wrestling in tofu is a far, far better thing than feeding the hungry. And, given PETA’s ethical priorities, it would be hard to argue with that logic.
Source:
Hunters’ Venison Donations Hit 230 Million Meals. Ken Moran, New York Post, November 14, 2004.
Sled Dog Action Coalition/PETA Unsuccessfully Try to Stop Appearance by Dog Sled Racer
In September The Sled Dog Action Coalition and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals led an e-mail and letter campaign to convince a women’s empowerment workshop in New York to drop an appearance by dog sled race DeeDee Jonrowe. Jonrowe is best known for holding the fastest women’s time in the Iditarod.
Yvonne Kopy, director of the Wild Women Unite conference held in Pulaski, New York, told the Associated Press that she received about 30 e-mails a day — some as far away as Europe — asking her to cancel Jonrowe’s scheduled appearance. Kopy told the Associated Press,
I’ve fought many battles, but I didn’t expect this one. The U.K., Italy, France, Scotland. That they really care who comes to Pulaski, New York, I had to laugh.
In an e-mail to the Associated Press, Margery Glickman of the Sled Dog Action Coalition said,
The Iditarod is animal abuse. And animal abuse is not motivational for women.
Similarly, PETA’s Amy Rhodes told the Associated Press,
Driving dogs into the ground and literally working them to death is certainly not a true sport.
Organizers went ahead with Jonrowe’s appearance and she led a parade through Pulaski.
Sources:
Protest targets dog sled racer. Associated Press, September 13, 2004.
Wild women unite in Pulaski. Edwin Acevedo, The Post-Standard (Syracuse, New York), September 18, 2004.