Brian.Carnell.Com

On September 23, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted without opposition a resolution condemning cat declawing and urging cat owners and veterinarians to abandon the practice.

This follows a unanimous request by the San Francisco Commission of Animal Control and Welfare that the Board of Supervisors ban cat declawing within San Francisco.

Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval instead introduced the resolution condemning cat declawing. The resolution argues that cat declawing is both unnecessary and cruel,

WHEREAS, an onychectomy is often a non-therapeutic amputation, or declawing of the third phalanx (or tip) of a cat’s paw; and,

WHEREAS, this surgical claw removal severs the attached muscles, tendons, and nerves in the front paws and can lead to bone fragments, arthritis, abscesses, biting, litter box avoidance, and degenerative claw regrowth; and,

WHEREAS, more sensible and humane alternatives exist for guarding human safety against cat scratching;

Supervisor Sandoval said that depending on the response from the public over this resolution, he may yet introduce an ordinance that would ban cat declawing in San Francisco.

The full text of the resolution can be read here.

Sources:

Clamping down on cat declawing. Simone Sebastian, San Francisco Chronicle, September 19, 2003.

On October 2, Farm USA and a number of other groups marked the 20th observance of World Farm Animals Day. Prior to this year’s observance, Farm USA also released its annual look at the total number of animals slaughtered in the United States and the rest of the world.

The results are hardly surprising — despite all of that activism, the total number of animals slaughtered in the United States in 2003 is expected to exceed 10 billion for the first time (and that figure does not include fish and other aquatic organisms which Farm USA notes is itself likely to be in excess of 10 billion).

Extrapolating from partial USDA data, Farm USA estimates 2003 totals that break down like this,

According to a press release announcing the spectacular lack of success of World Farm Animal Days and similar efforts, Farm USA said,

Farmed animal literally never “have a nice day.” From birth, they are caged, crowded, deprived, drugged, mutilated, and smothered on today’s factory farms. Even slaughter may not end their agony. Recent documentaries have shown animals skinned, dismembered, and gutted in U.S. slaughterhouses while still conscious. USDA has never enforced the 1958 and 1978 federal Humane Slaughter Acts.

In more personal terms, during a 77-year lifetime [meat eaters can live to 77? I thought all non-vegans dropped dead well before that?], a typical U.S. resident is responsible for the suffering and death of 11 cows, 32 pigs and sheep, and 2,660 turkeys, chickens and ducks, and uncounted numbers of fish and other aquatic animals — enough to populate a family farm.

Americans weren’t the only people eating lots of animal flesh in 2003, of course. According to Farm USA, more than 51 billion animals were slaughtered worldwide for food in 2003.

Sources:

Animal agriculture claims 10 billion victims in 2003. Press Release, Farm USA, September 25, 2003.

In September, the Pew Initiative released the results of a poll it conducted in January 2003 to gauge the American public’s attitudes toward genetically modified plants and animals. It found, in general, significant support for genetically modified plants and significant opposition to genetically modified animals.

The Pew Initiative surveyed 1,000 Americans and asked them to rank how comfortable they felt on a scale of 0 to 10 with genetically modifying plants and animals. The rank by mean ended up looking like this,

In addition, the Pew Initiative asked half of the sample more detailed questions about plant genetic modification and the other half of the sample more detailed questions about animal genetic modification. Those results also found a wide gap between how Americans view genetically modifying plants vs. animals.

Eight-one percent of those surveyed, for example, said that producing more affordable pharmaceutical drugs was a good reason to genetically modify plants. But only 49 percent said that producing more affordable pharmaceutical drugs was a good reason genetically modify animals.

There were majorities in support of some efforts for genetically modifying animals. When asked if creating goats that would produce milk containing products that could be used in bullet-proof vests, 58 percent of respondents said that was a good reason to genetically modify animals. Similarly 57 percent said creating organs for human transplant was a good reason to genetically modify animals.

But, as the Pew Initiative noted in its summary of the poll results, in both case the opposite was still significantly stronger than it was for any of the plant-related genetic modifications that people were asked about.

This survey was an updated to another poll conducted by the Pew Initiative in January 2001 which found that Americans don’t know very much about genetically modified food. In that survey, 54 percent of Americans said they had read “not much” or “nothing” about genetically modified foods and only 19 percent of Americans said they had eaten genetically modified foods (almost every consumer in the United States has consumed GM food).

Sources:

Public Sentiment about Genetically Modified Food. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, March 2001.

Americans are far more comfortable with genetic modification of plants than animals. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, September 2003.

Poll: People Opposed to Animal Studies. Emily Gersema, Associated Press, September 18, 2003.

On September 26 a U.S. District Court issued an injunction to halt a pheasant hunting season in Cape Cod National Seashore until an environmental impact statement can be completed. The decision was a victory for the Humane Society of the United States and the Fund for Animals which sued the National Park Service to stop the hunt.

The animal rights groups filed suit in October 2002 and asked for an injunction at that time. Their request was turned down at that time.

Since the 1960s, Massachusetts state officials have been releasing non-native ring-tailed pheasants through the state for a fall hunting season. Over the past few years, about 40,000 pheasants have been brought into the state and released for a six-week hunting season.

Animal rights groups argued that the National Park Service had never prepared an environmental impact statement of the practice as is required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Park Service and hunting groups countered that since the stocking of pheasants was already established before the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, that it was exempt from the environmental impact statement requirement.

Judge Patti B. Saris disagreed. In her decision to enjoin the hunt she wrote,

Defendant-intervenors (but not NPS) argue that NEPA is not applicable to the Seashore’s hunting program because it was in place before NEPA became law. However, an ongoing federal program that was initiated prior to NEPA is not exempt from NEPA obligations. See Jones v. Lynn, 477 F.2d 885, 889 (1st Cir. 1973) (holding “‘the only correct interpretation [of NEPA] would seem to be that if the requirements of the Act can feasibly be applied – even if the project in question was begun prior to the enactment of NEPA – then they should in fact [**26] be applied.'”)

The ruling does not effect hunting of native game bird and other species in the Cape Cod National Seashore. The full text of Judge Saris’ ruling can be read here.

Sources:

Federal Court Declares Cape Cod National Seashore Sport Hunting Programs Illegal–Stocking and Hunting of Non-native Pheasants is Blocked. Press Release, The Fund for Animals, September 26, 2003.

Court Orders Park Service to Restrict Hunting at Cape Cod. Gun Industry Litigation Reporter, October 2003.

Judge Puts Cape Pheasant Hunt On Hold She Orders Us To Evaluate Harm To Environment. Andrea Estes, Boston Globe, October 1, 2003.

PR Week ran a short profile in September of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ Bruce Friedrich. As PETA’s director of vegan outreach, Friedrich is responsible for many of PETA’s more outrageous public relations campaigns.

The article by Anita Chabria was generally favorable to Friedrich, nothing that, “No matter where you fall on the political scale, most people are aware of PETA’s efforts, due in large part to its innovative and relentless public relations.”

On the other hand, PETA does not usually receive the sort of publicity that most organizations would like to receive. Yes, people are aware that PETA thinks there is no qualitative difference between the Holocaust and animal agriculture, but PETA’s “Holocaust On Your Plate” campaign has hardly turned out a new wave of vegans.

Which doesn’t bother Friedrich at all. He tells Chabria,

I believe that how we present animal rights and veganism to journalists or civic leaders should not differ in any substantial way from how we would present it to our friends. I try to apply the golden rule beyond the species barrier. I think the chickens would want us to not worry about winning popularity contests, but rather to worry about what we can do to alleviate their suffering. We at PETA have an attitude that we would rather go too far than not far enough.

Certainly you will not find any criticism of that strategy here. The more PETA spends on campaigns likening animal agriculture to the Holocaust or meat eaters to serial killers, the more it will remain marginal and help ensure the animal rights movement remains marginalized.

Source:

PETA PR man Friedrich practices what he preaches. Anita Chabria, PR Week, September 22, 2003.

In September, the Animal Liberation Front claimed responsibility for vandalizing a laboratory at the Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine.

Animal rights extremists broke into the Inhalation Toxicology Research Facility and destroyed computers and other equipment in the lab as well as splashing red paint throughout the lab. Damage estimates put the cost of the vandalism at several hundred thousand dollars.

The lab conducts research on cigarette smoke and other toxins that can contribute to cardiovascular and respiratory disease. An e-mail from the ALF taking responsibility for the destruction said, “It should be clear that animals do not deserve to be tortured and die in this pointless research.”

Sources:

Vet school lab at LSU damages by vandals. Associated Press, September 25, 2003.

Sabotaging lab wrong approach. The Advocate (Baton Route, Louisiana), October 1, 2003.

Animal rights group claims it trashed LSU lab. Michelle Millhollon, The Advocate (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), September 25, 2003.
FBI investigates Vet School break-in. Samantha Sieber, The Reveille (Lousiana), September 25, 2003.