Egypt Begins Slaughtering Pigs Allegedly to Avoid Swine Flu

The Egyptian government has begun slaughtering all of the pigs in the country. From the NY Times:

Egypt has begun forcibly slaughtering the country’s pig herds as a precaution against swine flu, a move that the United Nations described as “a real mistake” and one that is prompting anger among the country’s pig farmers.

There are a estimated 300,000 that will be killed.

Update - Here is a fascinating blog post about the social and economic aspects of those that raise pigs in Egypt. Pig farmers are primarily Coptic Christians, and use them to dispose of garbage. Mubarak would like to turn this activity over to western companies.

Rush Limbaugh Speaks Out On Behalf of Humane Society

Rush Limbaugh has recorded an audio promo for the Humane Society. I don't agree with him on much, but I give him credit for standing up for animals.

Did Swine Flu Outbreak Start at an Industrial Hog Farm?

According to this AP article, some are blaming Smithfield Foods, which has 8 operations in La Gloria Mexico. The company denies it. You can read all about the horrible things Smithfield Foods has done in the US in this long Rolling Stone article. I can only imagine how things are run in Mexico.

Quote of the Week

"Atrocities are no less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research."

- George Bernard Shaw, Irish Playwright and Critic

Actress Lilly Tomlin Calls on Seattle Woodland Park Zoo to Release Elephants to Sanctuary

Lilly Tomlin is in Seattle and spoke out about the conditions of elephants at the Woodland Park Zoo on behalf of the Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN).

Addressing supporters and the media at the Phinney Ridge Neighborhood Center, Tomlin said elephants in zoos across the country are suffering in confinement. Echoing claims made by others who oppose elephant exhibitions, Tomlin said the pachyderms are afflicted by foot and joint problems when not allowed to roam.

Here is a link to the group that sponsored her visit here.

Are We Really a Movement?

Last night, I watched "Milk," the film about assassinated gay rights activist Harvey Milk. It's an excellent film and I highly recommend it. I not only learned about Harvey Milk, but about the early stages of the gay rights movement (which is ongoing today when one looks at all the right-wing flutterings over gay marriage.)

It made me think though about the animal rights movement. Are we really a social movement like gay rights and civil rights? I think we have the potential to be, but I just don't feel that we are there yet.

One of the benefits that human rights movements have is that they are articulating for themselves. Humans get all wrapped up in stories of those who can communicate their sufferings. Animals can't do that. That's why people say that they have no problem eating them, harvesting them, experimenting on them, etc. The animals can't say, "This hurts me," "Stop it," or "I have a right to my life." We advocates have to impute those words to them, which is why so many of our opponents can argue that we are wrong. They argue that we are only making things up and assigning anthropomorphic tendencies to animals. This is because the animals cannot use human language to speak for themselves and contradict either side. (I believe they can speak, but in their own language that we can understand if we only listen.)

I also believe that we are a fragmented movement. Some fight for veganism, some against factory farms, some against experimentation, poaching, habitat encroachment, etc. There is a group for every cause. But how much can we accomplish when our resources are so divided? Who is our leader? Best Friends? PETA? The Humane Society? Or does everyone have their niche? Where does our power come from?

I also believe we lack a charismatic leader who can take to the airwaves and move an audience. We don't have a Martin Luther King Jr. or a Harvey Milk. We have Jane Goodall, who is a quiet unassuming person. We need a visible leader with passion and no fear, but also practical and driven to accomplish goals rather than just sounding off and garnering publicity.

I read Jonathon Alter once years ago who, writing in Newsweek, bemoaned the fact that there was no civil rights movement to galvanize the young people of the day. Just the sorry animal rights movement. It's not sorry, it just hasn't found its moral, UNITED, ORGANIZED voice.

Seal Products Banned in Europe

Hooray! Thanks to Animal Rights Person for the heads up on this.

As of last Friday...

* EU nations agree to ban on seal products
* Ban would lead to trade clash with Norway and Canada
* Final approvals seen as a formality

FBI Lists Animal Rights Extremist as Most Wanted Terrorist

Daniel Andreas San Diego, wanted for alleged involvement in 2 bombings in San Francisco has been listed by the FBI as one of their Most Wanted Terrorists.

San Diego has ties to animal rights extremist groups. He is known to follow a vegan diet, eating no meat or food containing animal products. In the past, he has worked as a computer network specialist and with the operating system LINUX. San Diego wears eyeglasses, is skilled at sailing, and has traveled internationally. He is known to possess a handgun.

That's right, be on the lookout for a guy that works with LINUX. He may also know Unix and Perl programming...

Big Ag Upset Over California Antibiotics Ban

I actually read one headline asking whether this was the beginning of the end of commercial farming in California.

A bit of an overreaction I think. But to big ag, it's just another step on a slippery slope started by the passage of Proposition 2.

The article is so short, I'm just posting the whole thing.

Californian farmers and ranchers would be prohibited from routinely dosing healthy farm animals with antibiotics under a bill getting its first level of approval on 21 April in the state Senate, reports Central Valley Business Times.

SB416, authored by state Majority Leader, Dean Florez (Democrat, Shafter), chairman of the California Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, which approved the bill three votes to one on 21 April, would have the prohibition in place by 2015. As early as 2012, public schools would be prohibited from serving fish, poultry or meat that had been routinely treated with antibiotics.

"We tell people to take antibiotics only as prescribed for the very reason that they not develop resistance to these drugs they may need when they are truly sick," said Mr Florez. "Then we feed those same antibiotics daily to the animals they will consume. It just doesn't make any sense to take this gamble with the long-term health of our communities."

Senate Bill 416 will next be heard by the Senate Education Committee.

Animal Health Care is Part of the Bottom Line

We've argued in previous posts that factory farming is simply not conducive to animal welfare. Better conditions for animals hurt the bottom line. Animal welfare is a cost of doing business, not a moral obligation.

Here's an example. I'm not arguing about the methods as I'm not a veterinarian, but it's a good example of the clinical discussion of costs when it comes to managing farm animal health.

The pig industry, says Dr MacDougald, is marked by generally poor production and financial analysis. This means poor assessment of ROI {Return on Investment} for interventions and little focus on opportunity cost. However, research based on finishing pig group opportunity costs calculated on mortality, culls and feed conversion to target reveals startling results, with the best to worst sites varying by $11 per pig, with the widest variance per site at $34 per pig.

These pigs are simply raw materials.

Good News and Bad News for Orangutans

The good news is that a new population of about 2,000 individuals was discovered in Borneo.

The bad news is that the pet trade is decimating the population on Sumatra.

Leona Helmsley's Fortune Goes to Medical Research

Yesterday I read about how Leona Helmsley’s estate was divided up. Over $100 million went to medical research while about $1 million went to animal welfare causes. (Actually, less than $1 million dollars went to animal welfare because a portion went to guide dog associations and that is human welfare as far as I’m concerned.)

Originally, animal groups actually thought they’d get a huge piece of the estate because Leona Helmsley had supposedly wanted it that way. But a group of trustees got together, determined she was mentally unfit at the time, and decided to “responsibly” donate to medical research instead. To human causes.

I think that just sucks. (I’ll probably get into trouble for saying this, but whatever.)

It’s more money for medical research. I wonder how much of this wonderful research will involve animal experimentation, the absolute anti-animal welfare cause. Beyond that, it’s more money for more humans to make more money. I believe that medical research produces procedures and drugs that most humans either 1) can’t afford or 2) pay for and end up with huge medical debts. If medical research were truly for altruistic purposes, then drug costs would be subsidized and university research would not constantly find its way into for-profit entities who patent their findings with the FDA.

The majority of children die in the world due to simple causes, like malnutrition, infection and diarrhea. How much malaria could be prevented by basic mosquito control? Better living conditions and basic health care workers would be enough to prevent so much death and suffering. But we don’t want to promote that. Instead, we promote drug development to take care of people once they’re ill…that’s the way to more profit both in this country and overseas.

I am so tired of hearing that medical research saves lives as though that should end all arguments. If you don’t support medical research, then you are against humans. That’s just an argumentative device to shut down debate.

Supreme Court to Review Legality of Animal Abuse Videos

You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but no.

The justices said they would review, at the request of the federal government, an appeals court decision that said Congress's broad attempt to discourage animal cruelty by outlawing its depiction violates the First Amendment.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia voted 10 to 3 last summer to find unconstitutional the rarely used law passed by Congress in 1999. The appeals court said the goal of protecting against animal cruelty was a worthy one, but one already accomplished by laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia outlawing the practice.

The appeals court noted that the Supreme Court is resistant to removing First Amendment protections of depictions even of illegal actions. The last time the court did so was over child pornography.

"Preventing cruelty to animals, although an exceedingly worthy goal, simply does not implicate interests of the same magnitude as protecting children from physical and psychological harm," the appeals court said.

I am incredibly angry at the last statement. That's just BS.

Thanks to Animal Law Online for the catch.

Quote of the Week

"Ever occur to you why some of us can be this much concerned with animals suffering? Because government is not. Why not? Animals don't vote."

-Paul Harvey, American Radio Commentator

Contrarian Nonsense About the Seal Slaughter

Ah, nothing like a column defending baby sea killers to get the blood going.

WHO could defend the slaughter of 300,000 harp, hooded and grey seals by hook-wielding hunters out to make a quick buck from the seals' pelts?

I could. The increasingly shrill condemnation of Canada's seal cull is based on a view of humans as bloodthirsty destroyers of nature. I would rather stand with the seal bashers than with these people bashers.

And so it goes. British journalist Brendan O'Neill talks about how the seals enjoy the great outdoors before being clubbed to death, and how nothing could be better for them then to be "made into something beautiful".

In short, it's a troll intended to piss people off. How shocking! How edgy! Somehow I doubt he gives this issue much thought other then not liking those that do care. It's the same attitude that makes US Republicans deny global warming just to make the Democrats angry. So, he pens this little poisonous article to see what kind of reaction he can get. Yawn.