So much for animal rights' activists commitment to free speech

A few weeks ago, Internet search
engine Lycos pulled its financial support of animal rights web provider
|Envirolink.Org| after a story about some of the extremist sites on Envirolink,
such as the Animal Liberation Front Information Site, circulated on the
web. Since then animal rights activists have been screaming up and down
that this is censorship, even though what happened was no different than
the results of animal rights activists’ own boycott activities — Lycos
decided to stop supporting speech it that its customers disagreed with.

This week the Animal Liberation
Front revealed just how committed it is to freedom of speech when it announced
the creation of an “Internet Division.” In a Sept. 21, 1998
release, ALF announced it would begin hacking web sites, sending mail
bombs, launching viruses, initiating denial of service attacks and other
unsavory methods to bring down the web sites and Internet access of those
with whom it disagrees.

In its release, ALF said,

In this day and age when most large animal abuse establishments have
a presence on the Internet they see the world wide web for selling their
blood products and for pushing their warped ideals to the masses. As
other warriors free animals from concentration camp [sic] around the
world, we will take the war to the Internet.

What’s next for these people, public book burnings of medical textbooks?

Source:

“Animal Liberation Front Announces New Strategy: Internet Division,”
North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office, Sept. 21, 1998.

Animal rights activists oppose xenotransplantation

Every year thousands of people die
who would have lived if it weren’t for the continuing shortage of organs
available for transplantation. Scientists around the world are working
to solve this shortage, but animal rights activists are opposing them
at every turn.

The most viable short term solution
is Xenotransplantation — genetically engineered organs from animals that
can be transplanted into human beings. Currently most such development
is concentrated on developing pig organs as a possible source for human
transplantation. Biotech companies are working at genetically modifying
the pig organs so the human recipient is less likely to reject them.

Animal rights activists, of course,
hate the idea of using pigs to do something as frivolous as save a human
life. Mike Baker, head of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection,
said developments in xenotransplantation represent “a very backward
step in terms of animal welfare [that] could pose serious health risks
to the human population.”

A group calling itself the Campaign for Responsible Transplantation is already circulating a petition to ban
all animal-to-human transplantation and environmental groups are also
jumping on the bandwagon, citing the possibility of a deadly virus passing
from animals to human beings in the transplantation process.

While the viral issue is certainly
a serious one, it is being addressed by regulatory agencies in the United
States and Europe responsible for approval of medical products. In both
the United States and Europe, for example, regulatory agencies are developing
strict monitoring protocols for tracking all infections and diseases contracted
by human recipients of xenotransplantation in addition to the rigorous
safeguards to minimize the risk of a crossover disease in the first place.
Unfortunately, the animal rights and environmental activists
seem unlikely to be satisfied with anything but zero risk, which of course
is impossible in any human endeavor (after all, the risk that a deadly
disease will cross over from pigs to human beings just from normal contact
on farms is not zero as the various influenza pandemics are evidence of,
though there are ways to minimize the risk).

Xenotransplantation is simply the
best chance we have to save thousands of lives around the world. Lets
hope animal rights activist and environmentalist extremists don’t close
off this important area of research before scientists even get to explore
it fully.

Sources:

“Animal organs could save people if the body would accept them,”
Lauran Neergaard, The Associated Press, September 17, 1998.

“Biotech regulations: paving the way for British xenotransplantations,”
Nigel Williams, Science Magazine, August 6, 1998.

Campaign for Responsible Transplantation petition, http://host.envirolink.org/crt/petition.pl

Scientist says maybe deer hunting isn't cruel after all

Last year the National Trust in
the United Kingdom prohibited Hunting on its land after a study by Patrick
Bateson, a professor of animal behavior, claimed hunting subjected Deer
to incredible level of stress and, therefore, was cruel. In mid-September
Bateson was forced to revise his views to conclude that hunting is not
necessarily cruel.

Bateson, for example, originally
reported that deer subjected to a hunt suffered extensive muscle damage
caused by severe stress. A study by Roger Harris of the Royal Veterinary
College disputed this claim along with a claim Bateson made that stress
from hunting caused red blood cells in the deer to break down.

Perhaps Bateson’s most stunning
claim was that the stress deer experienced from predation by human beings
was unlike any sort of stress deer would experience in a natural environment.
Harris’ study, however, found no evidence of this and concluded that the
stress deer experience during a hunt is not fundamentally different from
other forms of stress.

As a result of Harris’ study, Bateson
and other researchers signed a 9-point statement issuing specific modifications
of the findings of their original research, although Bateson said he still
feels hunting is “knowingly cruel.”

Source:

“Professor revises view on deer hunt cruelty,” Charles Clover, The
Daily Telegraph, September 15, 1998.

More animal rights indictments

Two men who allegedly freed thousands
of mink from facilities in Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota last year
were recently indicted on charges of committing animal enterprise terrorism
and unlawful interference with interstate commerce.

Peter Young, 20, of Mercer Island,
Wash., and Justin Samuel, 19, of Snohomish, Wash., were charged with
six counts arising from an alleged cross country spree of “animal
liberation.”

The two were stopped by police
on Oct. 28, 1997 after fur farms in Wisconsin noticed the two acting
suspiciously and tipped of police. A search of their car turned up a list
of mink farms compiled by the Animal Liberation Front.

If convicted, Young and Samuel
could face up to 82 years in jail. Both men are still at large.

Source:

“Two men accused of freeing mink on farms in three states,” Kevin
Murphy, Washington Journal Sentinel, September 23, 1998.

The ASPCA's road to animal rights

The Capital Research Center, a conservative-oriented group that tracks charity and philanthropic groups, recently issued a report documenting the |American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals|’ gradual shift away from a strictly animal welfare position to what is now almost a traditional animal rights organization.

The ASPCA, of course, is the oldest humane association in the United States, and is famous for its support of animal shelters. But since Roger Caras became president of the group in the early 1990s the ASPCA move closer and closer to the animal rights community. Caras has, for example, come out in opposition to meat eating saying “nothing is worse than reducing a living creature to a steak or chop wrapped in cellophane.” In its Animal Watch newsletter, the ASPCA has urged readers at Thanksgiving to “save” a turkey “instead of serving one.”

More alarmingly, Animal Watch has encouraged its readers to visit the Rutgers University Animal Rights Law Center web site. The law center seeks to have animals legally recognized
as persons. The ASPCA has also gotten firmly behind the “Pet Theft” issue and supporter various legislative proposals to make it more difficult
for medical researchers to obtain lab animals from pounds (animal rights
activists are convinced that large numbers of pet animals are stolen by
pounds specifically to be sold to medical researchers.) The ASPCA has
also endorsed various anti-Hunting and anti-Trapping legislation, including
those that would make it more difficult and expensive to deal with predators
that threaten endangered and protected species.

The Capital Research Center recommends
people concerned about animal welfare donate their money to local shelters
rather than national organizations such as the ASPCA.

Source:

The ASPCA:
From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights. Daniel T. Oliver, August 1998.

Ellerman update — Josh and Clinton on the outs with ALF support network

The Animal Liberation Front and
its supporters are fuming that convicted animal rights terrorists Josh Ellerman, 19, and his brother |Clinton Ellerman|, 21, are apparently
cooperating with prosecutors and providing them with detailed information
about ALF activities. A press release from the North American A.L.F. Supporters
group claimed,

… evidence is growing that shows that Clinton Colby
Ellerman, convicted A.L.F. activist, and one of the five facing new charges,
has been willingly giving evidence on other activists to federal authorities,
possibly for a number of months.

The five indicted individuals referred
to in the release are Josh and Clinton Ellerman, Andrew Bishop, Alexander
David Slack and Adam Troy Peace. All have been indicted by federal prosecutors
in Utah for their role in the 1997 firebombing of a mink farm. Josh
Ellerman recently plead guilty to the charges against him and received
a 7-year sentence for his role in the arson. Ellerman could have received
35 years, and his relatively light sentence is believed to stem from his
ongoing cooperation with prosecutors.

The North American ALF Supporters
release claims that “no activist has the right to endanger the lives
of and liberty of others in a strategy to save their own hides.”
Got that? ALF members have the right to commit arson, burglary and a whole
host of violent crimes, but reporting said crimes endangers the safety
and liberty of ALF activists.

In response to these allegations,
the North American ALF Supporters group announced it is
removing the Ellermans from its list of animal rights prisoners for whom
it offers support.

Sources:

New arrests and b possibility of grassing
surround Utah A.L.F. Actions… North American A.L.F. Supporters
Group, Sept. 17, 1998

Animal-rights bomber gets 7-year prison sentence. The Salt Lake Tribune, September 11, 1998.