http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4265763.stm

Key to intelligence questioned

Thought might not be dependent on language, according to new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A UK team has shown that patients who have lost the ability to understand grammar can still complete hard sums. This suggests mathematical reasoning can exist without language. The study undermines the assumption that language is the key quality that makes our thought processes more advanced than those of other animals. "We are kicking against the claim that it is language that allows you to do other high order intellectual functions," lead research Rosemary Varley, from the University of Sheffield , told the BBC News website.

The researchers made the discovery by studying three patients who were suffering from severe aphasia - they had lost the ability to understand, or produce, grammatically correct language. For example, although they understood the words "lion", "hunted" and "man", they could not tell the difference between the sentences "The lion hunted the man" and "The man hunted the lion". But when they were presented with sums like 52 minus 11 and 11 minus 52,which were structured in a similar way, they had no problem. We are kicking against the claim that it is language that allows you to do other high order intellectual functions.

 Rosemary Varley

"Our patients can clearly do those problems which show the same reversibility," said Dr Varley. "So that shows they have a good insight into these very abstract principles. "Despite profound language deficits these guys showed advanced cognitive abilities, which indicates considerable autonomy between language and thinking." The new findings contradict previous studies which used brain imaging techniques to work out how people process mathematics. A French-led team found that calculations lit up the left frontal lobe, an area of the brain known to make associations with words. But Dr Varley is not convinced by this research.

"The problem with functional brain imaging is you don't really know what your subjects are doing when they are in the scanner," she said. "If you give them a sum they might be reading the numbers aloud in their head. "But that is not to say that language is necessarily a part of mathematics."

If Dr Varley is correct, it again raises the question of what makes humans different. According to many academics, people are much cleverer than other animals because language gives them a higher order of thought. But these findings suggest cleverness and language might not be as closely connected as once assumed.

Elizabeth Brannon, of Columbia University , US , wrote in a commentary article: "A promising avenue for further exploring this hypothesis is to look for precursors of social reasoning and mathematical syntax in nonhuman animals

After fifteen years, the 'McLibel Two' can toast victory in their battle
with a burger behemoth

By Stephen Castle in Brussels

16 February 2005

Vindicated in the longest court battle in British legal history, David
Morris and Helen Steel celebrated in the Strand yesterday - not with the
customary champagne outside the High Court, but with a demonstration
outside McDonald's.

For 15 years the two activists from north London fought a case against the
world's biggest burger chain which seemed doomed. Yesterday, the Goliath
of the fast-food world and the Government were humbled when the European
Court of Human Rights ruled that the two did not have a fair trial.

Mr Morris, a former postman, hailed the ruling as a "total victory",
adding: "It has been an empowering experience because it shows that
ordinary people like us can stand up against seemingly impossible odds and
win".

True though that may be, it does not explain the importance of yesterday's
court victory. The determination of two activists has shaken a
multinational, stirred a debate about food and health and prompted a
review of British libel law. Because of the "McLibel Two", the rich and
powerful may no longer be able to go to court safe in the knowledge that
everything is stacked in their favour.

One of the most remarkable stories in British legal history is also the
tale of how McDonald's committed one of the biggest own goals in the
annals of corporate public relations.

The story began when a pamphlet, "What's Wrong with McDonald's", was
distributed which accused McDonald's of selling unhealthy food. Neither Mr
Morris, now 50, nor Ms Steel, now 40, wrote the six-page flyer but both
were members of an organisation which produced it called London Greenpeace
(not related to the environmental group, Greenpeace).

When they served a series of libel writs against activists, McDonald's had
little reason to suspect the scale of their error. Three of the accused
apologised to escape legal action and even Mr Morris and Ms Steel, who
fought on, believed they were destined to lose.

Mr Morris said yesterday: "We were told we did not have a cat in hell's
chance ... but we decided that we had to fight because McDonald's were
suing a lot of people and creating a climate of fear." With only
occasional sessions of free advice from a sympathetic barrister, Keir
Starmer, the two were forced back on their own resources. They had to
co-ordinate their defence on Tube journeys on the way to court. The trial,
which came to court in 1994, included 313 days of testimony, eight weeks
of closing speeches and six months of deliberation.

Mr Starmer said yesterday that the defendants "were extremely courageous.
Most people would have backed down and everyone else, in fact, did."

In the end the judge endorsed the leaflet's claim that McDonald's paid low
wages to its workers, was responsible for cruelty to some of the animals
used in its food products and exploited children through advertising
campaigns.


Nevertheless, the verdict was that the company had been libelled and it
was awarded
60,000 in damages, later reduced to
40,000 on appeal. For the multinational this was a pyrrhic victory; never
before had the corporation been subjected to so much scrutiny. Mark
Stephens, a solicitor who advised the "McLibel Two", argues that, without
their stand, the film Super Size Me [which shows the health effects of
eating a diet of McDonald's food], could never have been shown in the UK .


Yesterday's ruling in Strasbourg was against the Government rather than
McDonald's because the "McLibel Two" successfully claimed that they were
deprived a fair trial. The judges found that the "denial of legal aid to
the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case
effectively before the court".


Though it is possible under recent British law for defendants in libel
cases to receive legal aid, Mr Morris's lawyers say that none have so far
done so. If it is to comply with this finding [which it must], the
Government will have to ensure that in future a wider category of
defendants are eligible for state-funded legal advice. Second, the court
found that the damages were disproportionate, and Mr Morris and Ms Steel
were awarded financial damages of
20,000 (
13,700) and
15,000 respectively.


Mr Starmer concluded: "This has gone from three or four people in anoraks
standing in the rain in Finchley on a Saturday afternoon, to the European
Court in Strasbourg . Companies know that people without money cannot fight
libel cases so they use the law to threaten everyone. It was only when
someone stood up and said, 'We have nothing to lose', that they went from
a position of weakness to one of strength."

FOOD FIGHT: TAKING ON McDONALD'S


1986: London Greenpeace, not connected with Greenpeace International,
begins a campaign against the fast food industry, choosing McDonald's as
the symbolic target. Mr Morris and Ms Steel distribute their leaflet
outside a McDonald's in London .

1990: McDonald's issues libel writ. Judges say later the chain had $30bn (
15.6bn) global sales in 1995. Mr Morris is earning65 a week; Ms Steel is out of work.

1994: Trial begins on 28 June. Denied legal aid, the campaigners represent
themselves.

1997: Verdict is delivered on 19 June, making it the longest trial in
English legal history. Judges uphold some allegations but rule the
campaigners libelled McDonald's and order them to pay
60,000 in damages.

1999: The original verdict is confirmed on appeal but damages are cut to
40,000.

2000: The pair tell European Court of Human Rights the trial breached
their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression.

2004: The two are granted legal aid and the action is heard. They have
still not paid the damages.

Yesterday: The campaigners' appeal is successful.

15 February 2005 19:34

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ruby16nov16,1,1672848.story

November 16, 2004

Soft Heart Under Her Thick Skin?
Observers look for signs of emotion in Ruby, back at the L.A. Zoo after a
reportedly unhappy stay in Tennessee .

By Patricia Ward Biederman, Times Staff Writer

Now that Ruby the elephant is back at the Los Angeles Zoo, questions
remain: Is she happy? And how can you tell?
The 43-year-old African elephant came home this weekend after 1 1/2 years
at the Knoxville Zoo. Ruby's planned transfer to Knoxville , where it was
hoped she would be a good maternal role model for other elephants,
prompted animal rights activist Catherine Doyle to sue to keep Ruby in Los
Angeles and later for her return, claiming the elephant was sad and lonely
in Tennessee .

The elephant's return was hastened by a videotape, shot in Knoxville by
Gretchen Wyler of the Hollywood office of the Humane Society of the United
States and televised in July, showing Ruby standing alone and swaying,
according to Wyler, like "a desperate elephant."
But experts don't agree on what animals feel. Naturalist Charles Darwin
wrote about animal emotions, but for much of the 20th century to say an
elephant was sad was to be guilty of anthropomorphism, the unscientific
projection of human feelings on animals.
Today, an increasing number of scientists believe that animals have
emotions.
Whether those emotions are comparable to human ones is another matter.
"Do animals have emotions? Most people are willing to say they do. Do we
know much more than that? Not really," said John Capitanio, associate
director for research at the California National Primate Research Center
and a professor of psychology at UC Davis.
Understanding is fairly limited even about human feelings. "There's not
much known about positive emotions in humans compared to negative
emotions. We know a lot about fear and a lot about anger," emotions that
cause measurable physiological changes, Capitanio said.
In animals, said Capitanio, who has studied individual differences in
rhesus macaques, "we don't know what love looks like, in spite of what
animal activists would say. When we see a chimp cuddling its infant, we
don't know if its internal feeling state is the same as what humans feel
when they embrace their children."
"It's quite a stretch for humans to look at an animal and interpret their
behavior," said Michael Hutchins, director of conservation and science for
the American Zoo and Aquarium Assn. in Silver Spring , Md.
"Animals can't talk to us so they can't tell us how they feel."
The inability of animals to speak there's the rub.
Everybody knows that Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn is happy that Ruby is
back in L.A. He said as much.
"She's in good spirits, and we're glad to have her back," Hahn told the
media Sunday, as he stood outside Ruby's temporary enclosure at the Los
Angeles Zoo.
But because animals cannot describe their feelings, human attempts to link
animal behavior with specific emotional states are "purely speculative,"
Hutchins said. "An animal might look agitated, but it might not be. It
might be playing. It might look like it's playing, but be quite
aggressive."
In assuming they know what animals are feeling, humans may be projecting
their own emotions onto them: "Animals, in some ways, are a neutral
palette on which we paint our needs, feelings and view of the world,"
Capitanio said.
Marc Bekoff, a professor of animal behavior at the University of Colorado
at Boulder , said he has received roughly 50 e-mails about Ruby in the last
few days.
An animal activist as well as a scientist, Bekoff said emotions such as
sadness are clearly reflected in an animal's behavior: "They mope around,
they don't eat."
Such behavior can be read in animals much as it can be in humans, he said:
"Usually when we see a person who seems to be sad, they are sad."
Bekoff doesn't believe Ruby belongs in any zoo, given her apparent
unhappiness in Knoxville .
"Do you send an unhappy kid back home without treating them?" he asked.
"They should put her in a sanctuary and see how she does. She doesn't like
zoos."
Bekoff said that the intelligence and emotional complexity of elephants
and other large mammals is what makes them such crowd pleasers: "People
can look at these animals and see that they have feelings," he said.
As for Ruby, L.A. Zoo Director John Lewis said she has been doing well
since her return to Los Angeles .
In describing her, he talked more about behavior than about feelings.
"She seems to be fine," he said. She is in an enclosure that is new to
her, and yet she is very calm, alert, curious.
"She's in a pen right next to Tara ," Lewis said, referring to another
African elephant. "They're investigating each other, touching trunks.
There's been no aggressive behavior either way, just touching, smelling
and talking a little bit to each other. That's about it."
But, Lewis said, he went to see Ruby in Tennessee and believes she was
well-adjusted there.
"She didn't look depressed or withdrawn in any way," said Lewis, who
observed her touching trunks with the other cows and "flirting with the
bull." At one point, she plucked hay off his back and ate it.
"That's a very trusting thing between animals," Lewis said.
Activists have said that Ruby was sad to leave Los Angeles and her
longtime elephant friend, Gita.
Ruby had left for Knoxville before Lewis became zoo director, but he has
seen videotape of Ruby and Gita together and thinks reports of bonding
between the two may have been exaggerated.
"Obviously, they're compatible and get along," said Lewis. "But I saw Ruby
doing almost the same things with the elephants in Knoxville ."
Ruby and Gita "weren't bonded to the exclusion of other animals or to the
exclusion of life without each other. I don't buy that at all."
As to how Ruby feels, she's not talking.

 WASHINGTON-The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has notified the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) that it will investigate charges by PCRM that Ohio State University has violated federal animal welfare regulations as part of its controversial Spinal Cord Injury Techniques Training Course.

The investigation comes in response to PCRM’s complaints that OSU ignored federal regulations requiring government-funded research institutions using animals to “minimize pain and distress” “minimize the number of animals used,” and to “consider non-animal alternatives.”

Nicknamed “Cruelty 101,” the OSU spinal injury techniques course requires students to surgically expose the spinal cords of mice and rats-a technique known as laminectomy-and drop weights on them to simulate human spinal cord injuries. Over the course of the three-week class, the 269 injured mice and rats are subjected to additional surgeries, invasive laboratory procedures, and physically demanding behavioral exercises before they are killed. The course is funded in part by NIH.

The university states that the class teaches a ‘standardized’ methodology for inflicting spinal cord damage.

“These procedures are as unnecessary as they are cruel,” says Neal Barnard, M.D., president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. “Current spinal injury research using human neural cell lines, impact studies on human cadavers, and clinical trials, make the OSU course not only pointless, but redundant.”

While rats and mice are not protected under the Animal Welfare Act, all laboratory animals are guaranteed some measure of protection under provisions of the Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS).

In 2002, PCRM was instrumental in stopping NIH-funded experiments by OSU researcher Dr. Michael Podell, who infected cats with feline immunodeficiency virus and injected them with methamphetamine (“speed”) in an attempt to create an animal model for HIV-positive humans using drugs.

Ohio State University received a grant from the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to fund the spinal cord injury techniques course over five years. The next class is scheduled July 15-20, 2005 . This will be the third year OSU has offered this course. University officials have so far refused to meet with PCRM and local humane organizations to discuss their concerns about the course.

Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive medicine, especially good nutrition. PCRM also conducts clinical research studies, opposes unethical human experimentation, and promotes alternatives to animal research.

* * * * *

American Authorities Infiltrate
a Cruel, Bloody Tradition
By Danielle Ring - daniellering@mindspring.com
www.daniellering.net

The long, dirt roads in the deep South can seem endless as they wind past untended fields and lonely houses. In the most rural of areas, the roads may lead you to tin shacks which barely contain the hell inside. Squeals reverberate off the walls; furious barking pierces the night. As you get closer, the acrid smell instinctively draws your hand to shield your nose and mouth.

Inside, a group of adults and children crowd in a semi-circle, patiently waiting for something. A man stands at a podium with a microphone, making some sort of introduction. "Angel here is a three-year-old bitch, bred and trained by Ray Jackson. She hates hogs and has a record of pinning in three seconds. Time to place your bets."

As people begin to move around, you notice a dirt-filled ring. There is a gate at one end and a chute at the other. Soon, everyone is again standing at the ring and you find a place along the front. The chute opens and a frightened hog slides through, landing with a thud. He shakes and appears to be injured. His ears and tail have tear marks and his tusks look as if they have been sawed off. The man with the dog in the pen releases the leash and in three seconds, the hog is squealing in pain as the dog's jaws latch onto his neck. Both adults and children cheer while the hog continues to scream. In a few minutes, the scene will repeat itself with another trained dog and another terrified hog.

Known as hog dog rodeos, these events have provided people with "entertainment" for at least two decades. Feral hogs are plentiful in places like South Carolina , Alabama , Mississippi , Florida , Georgia , Texas and Arizona . Hunters use trained dogs to corner hogs in the wild; they then keep the hogs barely alive in filthy conditions. When rodeo night arrives, the hogs are dragged into the pen-defenseless after their tusks are removed with bolt cutters-to face another dog who will tear them apart. For years, this cruel tradition has been a favorite pastime for families who live nearby as well as a money-making scheme for rodeo operators.

Most people would reasonably believe that hog dog rodeos are illegal under existing animal cruelty laws. But while district courts have been eager to try hog dog operators, authorities have not had much success in the past. Charging an operator with animal cruelty requires the cooperation of the local sheriff's department. Many times, the sheriff himself is the one operating the rodeo. And so this bloody business has continued to operate just below the radar.

In the past year, reporter Mike Rush attended an Alabama rodeo and his crew secretly filmed the horror. The local NBC affiliate station featured the undercover story on the news. The story lead to the arrest of the operator, Johnnie Hayes, and convinced Louisiana Representative Warren Triche to ban hog dog rodeos in his state. Triche's law was the first to specifically address this bloodsport.

The Humane Society of the United States has been following the hog dog story for several years. In late December, they assisted authorities in several counties in uncovering and arresting the leading rodeo promoters. Seven people in three states were arrested on animal cruelty charges. More arrests are expected. At the properties, investigators found both hogs and dogs in deplorable conditions. Dogs were tied to stakes and exposed to freezing weather. The hogs lived in cramped pens, their bodies mutilated and broken.

This news is good cause for celebration among animal rights supporters. However, the test will be whether the guilty are appropriately punished. If so, their story will set a precedent and hopefully convince other rodeo operators to put an end to this cruel bloodsport.

To offer your support and gratitude for the cooperation of the local authorities, you may contact:

Chester County , South Carolina
Sheriff Robert H. Benson, phone: (803) 581-5133. Call to thank him/his office for their help in arresting Arthur Parker, his son Arthur, Jr., and Parker's wife, Mary Evans Luther. Encourage them to ensure that the threesome is convicted on animal fighting charges.

Yavapai and Maricopa Counties , Arizona
Yavapai Sheriff's Office (928) 567-7710
Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio (602) 506-8530. Call to thank them for arresting James Curry and Jodi Curry-Liesberg and let them know what you think of hog dog rodeos.

Jefferson County, Alabama
Sheriff Mike Hale (205) 325-5700. Call to thank him for his department's role in arresting Richard and Shina Landers.

Please check the Humane Society's website (www.hsus.org <http://www.hsus.org/>) in the future for news on further developments.
                                                                         

~2~
CROATIA ... A Land Of Cruelty ?
an essay expressed by Croatians... for the world to read
From: Animal Friends Croatia prijatelji.zivotinja@inet.hr <mailto:prijatelji.zivotinja@inet.hr>
<http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/>

"A small country for great holidays ... But a small country for great cruelty!"

Our familiar tourism slogan could soon appear with those extra words you see above. Why? ... Because if we take some of the following facts into consideration, my country Croatia shamefully stands out amongst others by it's appalling treatment towards animals ... and the situation is getting worse.

Until recently, we were proud of our population of griffon vultures, about one hundred of them. Now we have only fifty. Half the population were poisoned in just one day during a bear hunt. No attempt was made to even look for, let alone punish the culprit. Excuse the pun, but this incident was barely reported or written about in Croatia , or anywhere else.

Just as a comparative example, Romania has a population of two griffon vultures and spends millions of euros on them. In Croatia , 50 or so are killed annually...
Likewise, we could have been proud of our bear population, which was one of the largest in South Eastern Europe ; but instead we decided to give up this wonderful creature for the sake of hunting. Ironically, a bear is actually featured on our five-kuna coin. So, for a couple of thousand euros, foreign hunters can come to this country, kill a bear, eat lunch and go home with its fur as a trophy.

With no proof to back up their claims, local hunters blamed our bears for the mysterious deaths of sheep on the island of Krk . Just another excuse for these misunderstood creatures to be hunted and shot. Local authorities didn't even respond to solutions offered by respected foreign experts. Instead they continued to insist on extermination. The hunting lobby is strong in this country; therefore offers by foreign environmental organizations are often ignored.

At a sitting of the hunting alliance, The President of the Croatian Republic , Stjepan Mesic stated that various negative stories about bears and other animals tend to circulate amongst those who do not know a lot about hunting. In fact, misinformation circulates amongst much of the Croatian public, mostly uneducated about animal welfare. Completely unproven claims of rampaging bears and other wild animals ripping whole herds of sheep to pieces just give more credibility and support to the country's hunting lobby. Because of this ignorance, bloody sports and killing for pleasure seems to stand proud in our countries cultural curriculum. The way things are going at the moment, the only place we are likely to see a Croatian bear in the future is on our five-kuna coin.

Croatia is probably the only country in the world where a hunter can openly say on national television that he has killed somebody's dog, cat, donkey etc. - and that he will also kill others. Hunting grounds start as close as three hundred metres from private land. Hunters take full advantage of this and intentionally kill "everything that moves." They know too well that the law allows them to do so, and they stretch that law to extremes. It is simply repulsive to watch these hunters - macho he-men in military dress, armed with guns and lead by dogs. They set out on their heroic crusades - the killing of "dangerous wild beasts" - such as rabbits, pheasants and foxes ... It's pathetic.

However, hunters are not the only ones who use loopholes in our catastrophic Animal Protection Act. Croatia 's entertainment industry regularly uses animals as stage props. The performers hurl them around the stage, batter them or sacrifice them in the course of "artistic expression." Up to a point, public activities like this might get condemned - and there is talk of bringing charges, but the sentiments are short-lived and soon forgotten. These occurrences are overshadowed by other, more inane news incidents, which the media would rather make space for.

Although we are a small Central European country, we are the largest world producer of chinchilla fur, with up to 50% of the total world production. These small South American animals are kept throughout their life in cramped cages. And when their time comes, their necks are broken - then they are skinned. These poor creature's pelts proudly contribute to Croatia 's export economy. In just 6 months, Chinchilla Co. Ltd. produced 10.5 tonnes of carcasses of these small rodents.

Even though more and more people in the world support synthetic fur, and are against the production of natural (animal) fur, Croatia is not interested in banning fur farming. Croatia is not interested in the fact that the anti-fur movement is gaining strength all the time and that a large number of civilized countries across the world condemn this kind of cruelty. But in our country, a woman thinks she is not a 'real woman' without a fur coat.

"In Croatia , we ask ourselves, in which century and time are we living: the stone-age or the third millennium?"

With regards to animal species from other continents, it is necessary to mention ostriches, which are presently one of the growing problems in Croatia . There are more and more breeders of these African birds, even though there is no legislation in our country on the keeping and slaughter of these animals. The bringing of such legislation is sought from authorities. In the meantime, neighboring Austria has banned the slaughter of ostriches.

This is the irony, because everything that is repulsive to the "West" - just a border away - is allowed in our country; from the hunting of protected species to the farming of fur and the slaughter of ostriches.

Unfortunately, the problem does not just lie in the farming and slaughter of animals from other continents. In all countries around the world, animals such as chickens, pigs, cows, horses and sheep are nothing but articles to serve and fulfill meat eaters. That is the common state of world animal farming for the masses. In some countries such as Great Britain there are rules, which are supposed to be followed when slaughtering animals. This is to reduce their pain of death to the minimum. But in Croatia they are inconsiderately slaughtered without anesthetic. Their teeth, wings, tails and testes are cut with no thought given to help reduce their pain. Passing through any Croatian rural settlement, anyone can see for themselves how such barbaric techniques are used to put animals to death. Veal calves, for example, are hung alive, upside down and their throats cut to drain their bodies of blood as the heart continues to pump.

Also located in Croatia are some of the largest chicken farms in Europe , as well as some of the larger European farms for milk cows and pigs. Similarly, we can 'boast' about our huge turkey, calve and beef cattle farms ... all run using barbaric slaughtering methods. Favourite specialties and popular meals are young pigs and lambs. Particularly ugly sights are the numerous restaurants along busy Croatian roads, with skewered baby animals turning over fires in front of the restaurant entrances.

There is no celebration, wedding or holiday without a roast or an excess of meat fare. However, probably one of the greatest problems occurs in the Adriatic Sea , which is almost totally depleted of fish. Fishing trawlers have ruined the seabed, by dragging their nets, and have over fished the entire area. Apart from our local fishermen, the Japanese are now assaulting the Adriatic Sea using new, more intensive methods.

We take this opportunity to consider some of our folk traditions, such as the beheading of bulls on the island Korcula. In fact this wasn't even a tradition in the first place. It was introduced as a tourist attraction, but instead gave rise to criticism and repugnance. Thankfully, it was given up after just two seasons.

What else can we expect? What other horrific ideas lie in the heads of our people or tourist associations? People who are more concerned about profit rather than conserving their depleting natural resources and native animals. The Croatian public must stand back and realize that they are ecologically out of sync with global concerns about the environment, species extinction and the ethical treatment of animals.

Is Croatia becoming the slaughterhouse of Europe ?

Whilst some countries laws prohibit the abuse of animals, our country seems to revel in it ... as a tourist attraction. The number of vegetarians worldwide is steadily increasing and health organizations around the world are supporting vegetarianism as healthy and ethical choice. But in our country, authorities still have no understanding for the introduction of vegetarian meals or food labeling into public institutions.

In Croatia , nobody has yet been punished because of cruelty to animals. Almost anything is tolerated. Pet owners can abuse their animal with no worry about being charged with cruelty. Therefore, it's no surprise when dogs and cats are abandoned and thrown out onto the street during the holiday season. They finally end up in a pound where they are killed within a shorter time limit than the law permits.

At the beginning of this article we parodied, "A small country for a great holiday." This is the advertising slogan of the Croatian Tourist Association. It's inspired by a seldom seen natural beauty of our land - its large potential for eco-tourism and the production of ecological (organic) growth and health food. The purpose of this article is not to dispute that, but to seek an answer to the questions:
"Why is Croatia turning to blood thirsty tourism of killing donkeys and bears?"
"Why is Croatia killing and selling of rare songbirds?"
"Why is Croatia farming animal species endemic to other climes and the opening of new hunting-grounds?"

At the same time, our rural tourism - illustrated by the beauty of ancient castles - deteriorates further, as they become overgrown with nettles and acacias. What was once among the cleanest rivers and springs in this part of the world are now undrinkable, poisoned a result of bad planning of industrial waste zones. The resulting cruelty and negligence towards all the animal species that share these expanses with us is overwhelming. Even though we are a 'small' country, Croatia is unfortunately also a land of great cruelty.

An article by the Croatian Animal Welfare Group, Animal Friends <http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/index.html>.
Edited and revised by LGGN

http://www.looking-glass.co.uk/news/library2002/2002-5-east-europe.htm#croatia

LATEST NEWS FROM CROATIA

According to a law in Croatia, any cat or dog found more than 300 meters of towns is considered strayed and therefore can be killed. Cats and puppies are being killed and hung on branches of trees in Medijimurje area in Croatia . Also dogs and cats have been killed by hunters. See pictures at: <http://www.apasfa.org/peti/croacia_pic.html>

LETTER SENT TO CROATIAN AUTHORITIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Dear Sir /Madam,

I am writing to request that you take immediate steps to introduce animal protection laws in Croatia . I am gravely concerned about the barbaric and cruel methods of stray animal control that are practised in Croatia . Such methods are simply unacceptable in modern society and must stop.

Apart from the terrible cruelty involved, these methods do nothing to address the problem of stray animals on the streets. According to Croatian laws, any cat or dog more than 300 meters beyond town limit s is considered strayed and therefore is allowed to be killed.

Cats and puppies are being killed and hung by the branches of the trees in Medjimurje area in Croatia . Throughout the last year, there were also numerous cases of puppies, dogs and cats being intentionally shot by hunters.

There is no excuse for failing to introduce laws on stray animals. There are many practical, cruelty free methods that can be introduced to control the numbers of strays, which poses no harm to the animals, most notably a neutering program. These have proved to be very successful in other countries. Please do intercede. Stop the barbaric cruelty and ensure that a proper legal foundation for animal protection is created in Croatia .

HOW YOU CAN HELP

PERHAPS THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) SHOULD BE NOTIFIED OF THESE PRACTICES MENTIONED ABOVE. THE CROATIAN GOVERNMENT IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO BECOME EU MEMBERS.

Write to the European Union (EU) and ask them to be more responsible on new membership.

Email Addresses to the EU

eurobarometer@cec.eu.int <mailto:eurobarometer@cec.eu.int>

EU Public Opinion e-mail:

trade-A3@cec.eu.int <mailto:trade-A3@cec.eu.int>

EU Trade

agri-library@cec.eu.int <mailto:agri-library@cec.eu.int>

EU Agriculture

euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int <mailto:euro-ombudsman@europarl.eu.int>

For complaints

eac-culture@cec.eu.int <mailto:eac-culture@cec.eu.int>

Culture

Forward your correspondence to the EU to Croatian authorities.

Office of the President - ured@predsjednik.hr <mailto:ured@predsjednik.hr>

Parliament of Croatia - sabor@sabor.hr <mailto:sabor@sabor.hr>

Office of the Prime Minister premijer@vlada.hr <mailto:premijer@vlada.hr>

In the past, Croatian Animal-Rights Activists have been threatened and intimidated by the authorities. Lets make sure the Croatian Government knows the world is watching.

** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The local government in the icy Danish territory hopes polar bear hunts will help bolster the faltering economy in the northwestern part of the island by creating jobs for hunting guides, Danish news agency Ritzau reported Saturday.

"We expect that people who go after the really big trophies and who have earlier been on elephant hunts will come. And there is already a lot of interest in polar bear hunting," Mads Skift, a consultant at Greenland 's national tourist board, told Ritzau.

Today only permanent Greenland residents who are professional hunters are permitted to kill polar bears. About 50-100 polar bears are killed annually, according to the tourist board.

Greenland 's Fishing and Hunting Directorate expects to have cleared the way for tourist polar bear hunts by the first half of the year, the news agency reported.

Campbell Soup – Sponsoring Animal Abuse and Animal Abusers!

If you read Campbell 's Code of Business Conduct and Ethics on the company website (www.CampbellSoup.com), you might think that this is a first class company always striving to do the right thing. Note for instance the following statement from Campbell President and CEO Douglas R. Conant:

"At Campbell Soup Company, we are committed to conducting every aspect of our business in compliance with the law and the highest ethical standards. This commitment is a source of pride and strength for our company and for every Campbell employee."

Sounds good, doesn't it?

Campbell Soup Brands and Products by Area/Country

United States
Campbell Condensed Soup; Campbell Chunky Soup; Campbell Select Soup; Campbell Soup at Hand; Campbell's Supper Bakes; Pace Picante Sauce; Pace Chunky Salsa; Pace Chipolte Chunky Salsa; Prego Pasta Sauces; Franco-American Spaghetti; Pepperidge Farm Cakes and Cookies; Swanson Broth; V-8 Juices; Godiva Chocolates

Unfortunately, the reality is very different from the rhetoric. Campbell , through its subsidiary Pace Foods, sponsors cruel rodeos that abuse, injure and kill animals. The list of victims includes horses and even very young calves.

More on Campbell Ethics
Campbell subsidiary Pace Foods not only sponsors regular rodeos, but also rodeos that include steer roping – an event so brutal it is allowed in only a handful of western states in the US. Perhaps most outrageous of all, Pace even extends an individual sponsorship to a steer roper! Just how bad is steer roping? At the December 2004 steer roping finals in Amarillo , Texas , nine injured or dead animals were dragged out of the arena, and one staggered out while bleeding from the nose and mouth.

Many rodeos across the US have few paying spectators. This should hardly come as a surprise. People who care about animals don't attend rodeos. With sponsorship money from big companies like Pace Foods and its parent company Campbell , however, rodeos can continue to abuse animals even without spectators in the stands, and that's just the beginning.

Campbell/Pace sponsorship money also allows rodeos to buy television time to air censored versions of rodeos that don't show calves being snapped backwards as they are roped, or steers injured and dragged in steer roping. Televised rodeos have injuries and deaths edited out too, all thanks to sponsorship money from corporate sponsors like Campbell/Pace Foods.

Our repeated attempts to communicate with Campbell have so far been rebuffed. Campbell apparently doesn't care about the humane treatment of animals, or the fact that virtually every credible humane society around the country is opposed to rodeo animal abuse. We hope that you will join other people who care about and respect animals in contacting Campbell and telling this company to stop sponsoring animal abuse and animal abusers.

Campbell should consider the opinion of the animal protection movement, and the billions of people ( Campbell 's customers) who care about animals.

Until Campbell agrees to drop its rodeo sponsorship, we hope you will consider dropping Campbell products from your grocery shopping list. Dropping Campbell products is the surest way to get this heartless company's attention.

Communicating Concerns to the Campbell Board of Directors
On its website (www.CampbellSoup.com), Campbell invites people who have concerns about its corporate conduct and business ethics to communicate their concerns with the Board of Directors. We encourage anyone who cares about rodeo animal abuse to do just that. Please ask Campbell decision makers to meet with SHARK to jointly view graphic evidence of rodeo cruelty and to drop its sponsorship of rodeo animal abuse.

Your concerns may be submitted by email to:
Mr. Harvey Golub, Chairman of the Board, at directors@campbellsoup.com
or you may send a letter to the following:
Mr. Harvey Golub, Chairman of the Board, Campbell Soup Company, Consumer Response and Information Center, 1 Campbell Place, Camden, NJ 08103-1701 USA

You may also call Campbell Soup Corporate Headquarters in Camden , NJ at (856) 342-4800 between the hours of 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM Eastern Standard Time. You will get a menu, but if you stay on the line without choosing an option, you’ll get the operator, and you can then ask for Mr. Conant. If you use the company directory, you can key in C-O-N-A-N-T, and it connects you with somebody at Mr. Conant's office.

You can also communicate with the Campbell Board of Directors by calling (800) 210-2173, the toll-free hotline telephone number for the U.S. and Canada . This line is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. An operator will ask you a number of questions, and you will be given a report number, meaning that you should get some kind of follow-up.

The following letter is just an example letter that was sent by Gary Loewenthal, please send your own letters since different letters have more impact.

Dear Mr. Golub,

Your assertion that the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) treats its animals humanely is ludicrous, provocative, and insulting. I'm usually not so blunt but occasionally it's called for. Abundant video documentation shows captive rodeo animals subjected repeatedly to 5000 volts of electricity, causing them to flail in pain when finally let out of the chute. In some cases, PRCA veterinarians passively watch the torture. "Torture" is a strong word, but you try seeing what it feels like and then tell me if you disagree. So far no "brave" rodeo cowboy has used the prod that produces the shock on himself; only on helpless animals.

Each year animals are killed and injured in rodeos because the events are inherently dangerous to them. For example, in rodeo calf roping the calf running at full speed (can you guess why?) is violently yanked and slammed to the ground, instead of gradually slowed down, as would be the case on a real ranch.

The PCRA animal welfare rules are a joke; a mountain of indisputable evidence shows that they are flagrantly and routinely violated.

Our family has regularly bought Campbell , Pace, Prego, and other Campbell Soup brands in the past. We are compelled to boycott them.

                                Australian Barbarism 

Knitting may seem like a harmless way to pass the time, but sheep are suffering the consequences, particularly Australian Merino sheep. Because Merino sheep are bred to have loose skin, they often suffer from flystrike or maggot infestation in their rear skin folds. As a result, these animals are subjected to a barbaric procedure called mulesing, where farmers flip lambs onto their backs, restrain them between metal bars, tmd use gardening shears to cut huge chunks of flesh from their back- sides without the use of painkillers.

When sheep are no longer useful for wool production, they are packed tightly onto open-deck ships and exposed to extreme weather conditions as they are transported for slaughter in the Middle East . However, extreme weather and trampling are not the only dangers for sheep aboard these ships. Last summer, over 5,500 sheep died aboard a ship that was stranded at sea for nearly three months because it could not dock. Once they reach the slaughterhouse, the fully conscious sheep have their throats slit. Sheep who are sick or injured aboard the ships are either ground up alive in mincing machines or are thrown overboard.

Unfortunately, boycotting wool produced in Australia can be a little tricky, since it is often sent through other countries, such as

Italy and China , before being sold to the consumer. To be certain that you are not purchasing Australian wool, avoid Merino wool, as this is the type of sheep used in Australia for this purpose.

The most humane thing to do is not buy wool at all. There are so many alterna­tives, such as cotton, cotton flannel, syn­thetic shearling, polyester fleece, and other cruelty-free fibers, that using wool is completely unnecessary. In addition, wool can be difficult to work with, since it is susceptible to moths and mildew, cannot easily be ironed, shrinks with each wash, damages easily, is expensive, stains easily, and can be very itchy against one’s skin.

Please contact the following Australian offi­cials and demand that they l)ut an iinmedi­ate end to mulesing and to the live export of sheep from their country. The 1-lonourable John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, Pa rliarneii I House. Canberra A(:T 2600.

Australia : e-mail: www.prn.gov.au/email.cfm. Tile [lonourable Nlark La[ham, MB, House of Representatives, Parliament House, (:aiiberra. ACT 2600, Australia ;e -mail:

Nl.La[ham.MP@aph.gov.au. Postage to Australia from the U.S. is 80 cents.

CONCEPTS
Elephant breakdown
G. A. BRADSHAW, ALLAN N. SCHORE, JANINE L. BROWN, JOYCE H. POOLE & CYNTHIA
J. MOSS

Social trauma: early disruption of attachment can affect the physiology,
behaviour and culture of animals and humans over generations.
----------------------------
The air explodes with the sound of high-powered rifles and the startled
infant watches his family fall to the ground, the image seared into his
memory. He and other orphans are then transported to distant locales to
start new lives. Ten years later, the teenaged orphans begin a killing
rampage, leaving more than a hundred victims.

A scene describing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Kosovo or
Rwanda ? The similarities are striking ^× but here, the teenagers are young
elephants and the victims, rhinoceroses. In the past, animal studies have
been used to make inferences about human behaviour. Now, studies of human
PTSD can be instructive in understanding how violence also affects elephant
culture.

Psychobiological trauma in humans is increasingly encountered as a legacy of
war and socio-ecological disruptions. Trauma affects society directly
through an individual's experience, and indirectly through social
transmission and the collapse of traditional social structures. Long-term
studies show that although many individuals survive, they may face a
lifelong struggle with depression, suicide or behavioural dysfunctions. In
addition, their children and families can exhibit similar symptoms,
including domestic violence. Trauma can define a culture.

How PTSD manifests has long been a puzzle, but researchers today have a
better idea as to why the effects of violence persist so long after the
event. Studies on animals and human genocide survivors indicate that trauma
early in life has lasting psychophysiological effects on brain and
behaviour.

Under normal conditions, early mother^Öinfant interactions facilitate the
development of self-regulatory structures located in the corticolimbic
region of the brain's right hemisphere. But with trauma, an enduring
right-brain dysfunction can develop, creating a vulnerability to PTSD and a
predisposition to violence in adulthood. Profound disruptions to the
attachment bonding process, such as maternal separation, deprivation or
trauma, can upset psychobiological and neurochemical regulation in the
developing brain, leading to abnormal neurogenesis, synaptogenesis and
neurochemical differentiation. The absence of compensatory social
structures, such as older generations, can also impede recovery.

Elephant society in Africa has been decimated by mass deaths and social
breakdown from poaching, culls and habitat loss. From an estimated ten
million elephants in the early 1900s, there are only half a million left
today. Wild elephants are displaying symptoms associated with human PTSD:
abnormal startle response, depression, unpredictable asocial behaviour and
hyperaggression.

Elephants are renowned for their close relationships. Young elephants are
reared in a matriarchal society, embedded in complex layers of extended
family. Culls and illegal poaching have fragmented these patterns of social
attachment by eliminating the supportive stratum of the matriarch and older
female caretakers (allomothers).

Calves witnessing culls and those raised by young, inexperienced mothers are
high-risk candidates for later disorders, including an inability to regulate
stress-reactive aggressive states. Even the fetuses of young pregnant
females can be affected by pre-natal stress during culls. The
rhinoceros-killing males may have been particularly vulnerable to the
effects of pre- and postnatal stress for two reasons. Studies on a variety
of species indicate that male mammalian brains develop at a slower rate
relative to females, but also that elephant males require a second distinct
phase of socialization.

As with females, male socialization begins during infancy with the mother
and a tight constellation of allomothers. But in adolescence, males leave
the natal family to participate in older all-male groups, a period
coincident with a second major stage of brain reorganization identified in
humans. Cull orphans sustain a series of traumas, such as premature weaning,
shock and the lack of older male socialization. The critical role of older
males in normal social development was clearly demonstrated when researchers
re-introduced older bulls to quell the young males' violence.
Hyperaggression and abnormally early musth cycles (periods of sexual
activity and hormonal shifts) both ceased.

Elephant hyperaggression is not an isolated event. At another heavily
affected African park, intraspecific mortality among male elephants accounts
for nearly 90% of all male deaths, compared with 6% in relatively unstressed
communities. Elsewhere, including Asia , there are reports of poor mothering
skills, infant rejection, increased 'problem animals' and elevated
stress-hormone levels.

Elephant sociality is both a strength and a weakness. As with humans, an
intact, functioning social order helps buffer trauma. But as human
populations increase, more elephants are likely to live in environments
characterized by severe anthropogenic disturbance. Current methods for
conserving both wild and captive elephant populations fail to preserve
elephant social systems. Even successful rehabilitation centres, such as The
David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, can only partially restore social processes
because there are not enough older herd members. There is an added danger to
social breakdown, namely that selection for asocial heritable traits in the
absence of normal socialization may increase under adverse conditions. All
these factors bring into question what kinds of behaviour are being
promulgated in both ex situ and in situ conservation programmes, and compel
new conservation strategies that promote normal social patterns.

Neuroscience has demonstrated that all mammals share a ubiquitous
developmental attachment mechanism and a common stress-regulating
neurophysiology. Now, a wealth of human^Öanimal studies and the experiences
of human victims of violence are available to help elephants and other
species survive.

------------------

References
1.     Clubb, R. & Mason, G. A Review of the Welfare of Elephants in European
Zoos (RSPCA, Horsham, 2002).
2.     Schore, A. N. Affect Dysregulation and Disorders of the Self (W. W.
Norton, New York , 2003).
3.     Slotow, R. et al. Nature 408, 425^Ö426 (2000).

Article at the following link:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7028/index.html
------------------------------------

• Nearly 20 million taxpayer
dollars fund the trapping. poison-
ing, and shooting of native
predators deemed a threat to
agriculture by the USDA Wildlife
Services agency, which each year
kills approximately 100,000 coy-
otes, bobcats, foxes, bears, wolves,
and other predators. In 2001. the
program also killed 1.6 million
other “nuisance” animals.

• Almost two-thirds of all large
mammal species are threatened or
endangered in the lower 48 states.
Lens than 10 percent of all
endangered and threatened spe-
cies in the U.S. are improving.

• About 20 percent of all
endangered and threatened spe-
cies are harmed by grazing.

• The illegal international trade in
wildlife is estimated to be worth $5
billion annually.

Hunting/Trapping
• While fewer than 6 percent of
Americans hunt, 31 percent par-
ticipate in some type of
nonconsumptive wildlife-related
recreation. Nonconsumptive wild-
life watchers spend about $38
billion each year.

• Hunters kill approximately 134
million animals in the U.S. each
year, including~
-- 25 million mourning doves
- 26 million squirrels
— 16 million ducks
— 13 million rabbits
— 6 million deer
— 3 million geese
— 3 million raccoons.


• Songbirds can remember, and
repeat, as many as 2,000 different
songs.

• As many as half of deer struck
with arrows by bow hunters are
left to die in the woods.

• Polls show that 88 percent of
Americaiis believe that wildlife and
habitat preservation should be the
highest priority of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.

• Trapping and/or hunting are
allowed on more than half of the
540 U.S. National Wildlife Refuges.

• According to the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, of 27 million
people who visited refuges, 22
million came for wildlife observa-
tion, while only 1.2 million visited
to hunt or trap animals.

Fur
• Worldwide, 36 million animals
are killed on fur farms each year.


Animals in Agriculture
• In 2001, nearly 10 billion land
animals were slaughtered for food
in the U.S., including:
— 9.3 billion chickcns
— 309 million turkeys
- 27.7 million ducks
— 41.6 million cattle/calves
— 118 million pigs
— 4.2 million sheep/lambs.


• More than half of all deaths in
the U.S. in 2001 were attributed to
diseases for which consumption of
meat is a major risk factor.

• The per capita consumption of
meat in the U.S. is now 209 pounds
annually, up from 196 pounds in
1980.


• Eighty percent of the grain
grown and more than half of the
antibiotics manfactured in the U.S.
are fed to livestock.

• Chickens and other birds are
not protected by the U.S. Humane
Slaughter Act.

• Animals raised for human
consumption in the U.S. generate
2.2 trillion pounds of waste each
year.


• E-coli 01 57:H7 a meat-
borne pathogen is responsible
for approximately 73.000 cases of
infection and 60 deaths in the
United States each year.

Companion Animals
• In 2Q01, 58 percent of U.S.
homes had companion animals.

• Every year. approximately one
million dogs and 584,000 cats are
taken in as strays. Only 16 percent
of these dogs and 2 percent of cats
are returned to their caregivers.

• Between 7—10 million cats and
dogs are euthanized in shelters
annually.

• Guardians of companion dogs
and cats in the U.S. spend
approximately $18 billion dollars
on their animals each year.

• A cat can have her first litter
when she is just five months old.

• There are an estimated 50
million feral and homeless cats in
the United States.

• U.S. taxpayers spend over $1
billion annually to collect, house,
destroy, and dispose of unwanted
animals.

• Studies show that interacting
with companion animals may speed
recovery from illness, reduce
stress, and aid family bonding.

                                                                                              ---------------
*The above data was previously collected, and does not necessarily reflect current facts,  plus or minus.
JBS