Keep Informed
 

 

 

Speaking Out For Those Who Can't!


 

                                                                 Speaking Out For Those Who Can't

 

Home Korean Cousine Our War On Animals More on the war Sara Palin trophy Read carefully Turkey holocaust Bush shoots again Orangutan plight Dolphin killers Humane lawmakers See this lion! By a thread About a senator The record They need you A letter Hell behind bars ALF Interview 9 billion kills Q and answers About greatness Revolutionary truth Your write fur facts Meat's Not Green Accident? Vivitorment 1 "A Critical Look..." * For a small planet How to fight it They mutilate and kill Sans Animals C C and c What you can do! Planetary visits Info Dogniblaism RabbitWise Medical news The low down on Iams A story Another story Your big chance! See this girl 12-10-2008 Th low down! Dante's place The logic of success 1 Live shipments Earth Justice Polar bears Pet shots every Year? Cruelty not opposed Guide for our viability Articulate non human To transform a world Scientific Failure What Where Who? Facts of vivisection Starve them if... Philippine Chow J. B. Suconik A stolen story Rhona Zaid Ph.D. Blinded for vanity Route to Auschwitz Of men and cows Misery brokers Fellow terrorists Chicken jails Our war on turkeys Survival guide Philosophy for rights The pious Amish Crime against nature They went naked You & environment Japanese Infamy Visit China Visit China again Chimp morality Relatives as food A declaration Global monsters Killers of Japan AOL humane article Our Hypocricy Innocent Victims Villa Omnivore We Are What We Do Up front testimony Informant for animals Socratic method Must be known 2 Who is fooling who? RESEARCH EXPOSED Instructive truth Your Answer Vivatorment 6 Vivitorment 7 New Slave Ships About hell Locke's signal Premise Potpouri Asian Omnivores A Diabolic Business Evolitive Religion First in the world Their Revenge My Letter From... Friend Or food Language Of Giants Links Kill Crazy  Means 70 Million failures Seeing is believing Questionable research Defining Violence Of Elys And Men Tribe Of Heart An Odd Couple Of Pro Killing Fur and... To inform the world Furriers Goldmine Chimp Culture Plutarch & Pythagoris Book Reviews Look at us Realities Caveat Best & Worst Jack speaks his mind Our house of terrors Elephant Emotions Wanted for cruelty Lobster Liberation Money As Violence Hidden World Vivitorment 2 Vivitorment 3 See For Yourself Vivitorment 4 Your Holocaust Are these Chickens Must Be Known Prof. G.L. Francione Wake Up World Polio Mutable Facts American terrorism Circus Elephants Quietly hear both sides Chinese Barbarism An articulate Chicken A  Rebuttal A Rights & Religion Albert Einstein Facts Alert Schweitzer Albert's Message Israel and... Animal Pedlers Animal Testing Animal Morality Animal Protein Another Example Answer to a hunter Authoratative data 1 Authorative data 2 Born to Die Brainy Dog Calf Prison China Cousine Cogent Insight Cogent Facts Commercial Sadism Compilations Ongoing Nightmare Cow-Pig-Dolphin Crucial Epiphany Cruelty On Wheels Hot plate dancing Dr. Greeks Testimony Damning Evidence Demonstrable Truth Do You Know? Dog Burning Dog Meat Dogs As Bait Doctors R. & G Greek Our baggage End war on Animals Dogs and... Essential Facts Farm Sanctuary Cause and effect Friends Or Food 2 From A Scientist Awards For Killers Readers delight Of Crucial Import Knowledge & resolution European Morality Our Jungle Our Lethal Failure Painless Disection Perception & Reality Peta's Account Peter Singer Philippine Morality Product Testing Prof. Bekoff Says... Prof. Bekoff's World Prof. Bekoff et al Professor Regan 2 Profitable Misery " the truth too well" Safe Haven? This must go Should Be Banned The Spanish Way Stop Look Think! Telling Evidence The hunted & hunter The logic of success 2 About Premarin Of Elephants & Hens Koko Frozen alive What Fish Feel Would You Know? Chinese Fur Farms Constant Horror Kosher Slaughter Is This Right? John Mcardle Ph.D A president's message I oppose do you? World wildlife fund A rights philosophy Korea 2 Grounds for change He approves cruelty Hear This Humane Control About WWF Big game hunters Pay per view slaughter Just a chicken Query for the world Question for you Puppy mills Keep Informed Vivitorment 5 Vivitorment 6 Lawful terrorism Must be known 3 They said... Myths about cats Of bear morality Omnivorous legacy Just the facts Of baby seals & men Life as property Revelations Shocking! Unsound medicine Men zoos & tigers March of dimes facts Ironic perversity A moral matter Chinese iniquity Bright Eyes Your deadly choice Of a cruel breed Prediction Forest relatives For vital answers Information 2 Information 3 Who to blame? More on fur Rabbit jails Life as proprietas Of foolish rabbis A little donkey Uncaged Feedback 1 They eat dogs Humane butchery? Jeremy Bentham Meat and cancer Religion and... About your IQ Page for dancers Its your choice Trapping They know An example Dr. Lillie'sTestimony They eat them They see the furthest Filming a seal hunt Every 2 seconds Chickopedia Vets for rights Puerto Rico Why? Your big chance again Believe it or not Dissection facts Good teachers What we do Cruelty for $ Christ and... For you and yours Chicago's tyrant Word picture Did you know ? Rescue Unbearable AN IDA EXPOSE 10 good reasons Uncaged Unacceptable! The real price Emulate Read now Learn here Food dogs Reminder Circus prisoners Still at it Dear friends Of human deviltry Our war on... $75M for a way They are smarter Professor of Bioethics Hey Einstein! Red lobster invite 99% Monkeys goats pigs Tell Nordstrom A royal schnook Friends forever Dirty candy

We have conceived this Web site
to provide knowledge of what
we must root out.
JBS

(With some exceptions)

 

 

'Educational 2 was created to publicize information not often found in your  newspaper.
Information pertaining to animals, and their  exploitation by we, mankind as a whole that has the power collectively to bring to an end our vicious treatment of animals. 

 

 

                                  Addition of new items will be an ongoing procedure.

 

 

 

                               February 22, 2005

Science bows to dog mind

   DOGS share four of the five main personality traits that psychologists use to understand human behaviour, says a British researcher based in the US .

The findings by Samuel Gosling of the University of Texas promise to settle a question that may strike pet owners as odd, but which is controversial among scientists: whether animals can be said to have a meaningful personality at all.

 

 

Dr Gosling said: “The evidence that dogs have personality is as strong as the evidence that humans have.

“There has been surprising resistance to the idea among scientists. There’s a strong view that animal personality is preposterous anthropomorphism: when I suggested applying measures of human personality to animals, I had people yelling that I was bringing the field into disrepute.”

Human personality is measured according to five variables: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to new experience. Dr Gosling found that only conscientiousness — which measures trustworthiness, selfishness and dependability — was absent in dogs.

To investigate whether dog personalities were predictable, Dr Gosling interviewed owners about their pets’ temperaments, then tested whether the dogs would behave as predicted in particular circumstances.

Dogs’ “emotional stability”, for example, the equivalent of human neuroticism, was tested by asking an owner to leave her dog and walk away with another dog on the lead.

“If I’d known how much this would affect certain dogs, I might have found another way,” Dr Gosling said. “Some animals absolutely hated this, and this correlated well with the predictions.”

                                                                    

News Release *  Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine  * February 9, 2005

PCRM Develops World’s First Cruelty-Free Insulin Assay


WASHINGTON—If you’re an organization dedicated to humane alternatives to the use of animals in research and you want to conduct research of your own that requires using animals as part of the testing, what do you do? In the case of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, you invent your own test.

PCRM president Neal Barnard, M.D., announced today that PCRM has developed the world’s first cruelty-free insulin assay, a test used to measure insulin levels in individuals with diabetes. The assay, which uses no animals, was developed as part of PCRM’s ongoing clinical trials to test the effects of a low-fat, vegan diet on patients with type 2 diabetes.

“We only had two options available to us when we began our diabetes trials,” said Dr. Barnard. “One, we could use test kits with insulin antibodies grown in vivo—literally from cells injected into the abdomens of live mice—or we could use kits containing antibodies produced from cells cultured with fetal calf serum. Neither was acceptable to us.”

The answer? Develop an in-vitro, or test-tube, procedure using a synthetic replacement for the fetal calf serum used as a culturing medium in millions of medical tests every year.

After months of painstaking detective work, PCRM research analyst Megha Even, M.S., working with BiosPacific, an Emoryville, California, lab, succeeded in culturing cells using an animal component-free, peptide- and protein-free, media supplement as a replacement for calf serum—basically a synthetic formula with cofactors and trace elements that promote cell growth. Then, in collaboration with Linco Research of
St. Charles , Missouri , Even successfully incorporated antibodies grown in the medium into a test kit for human insulin.

A report on the new methodology will be published soon in a peer-reviewed journal in conjunction with Linco. Even will present her findings at the “Experimental Biology 2005” scientific conference in
San Diego ,
April 2-6. The new assay kits are available commercially from Linco.

“We hope that by making the test readily available and competitively priced, researchers and medical labs will use it,” said Barnard. “We have proven that if researchers are willing to make the effort, there are effective, humane alternatives to animal-based assays and other testing procedures—alternatives that could help save the lives of millions of people and animals.”

There are an estimated 194 million people worldwide with diabetes. More than 15 million Americans suffer from the disease and resulting complications.

For more information, or to arrange an interview with Megha Even (PCRM) or Patricia Facchini (BiosPacific), contact Howard White at 202-686-2210, ext. 339; hwhite@pcrm.org. Requests for sales and technical information on the assay kit can be obtained through: info@lincoresearch.com.

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.

* * * * *

RELATED LINKS

* Nutrition education for diabetes patients
http://www.pcrm.org/resources/education/nutrition/nutrition4.html

* Diet and Diabetes factsheet
http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/diabetes.html

* Ten Delicious Dishes to Help Defeat Diabetes
http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/diabetes.html

* Diabetes: Can a Vegan Diet Cure Diabetes? By Andrew Nicholson, M.D.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/clinres/diabetes.html

* * * * *

MAIL OPTIONS

* Subscribe to PCRM’s news release distribution list
http://www.pcrm.org/news/subscribe.html

From: Tony Smith

In Defense of Animals, Mill Valley, CA  94941
http://newiberia.vivisectioninfo.org/NewIberiaWhistleblowerLawsuit.pdf

For Immediate Release
WHISTLEBLOWER CHARGES LOUISIANA CHIMP LAB WITH CRUELTY

20-Year Research Veteran Files Lawsuit Alleging Illegal Retaliation,
Numerous Animal Welfare and Employee Safety Violations

New Iberia, LA (February 14, 2005) -- A 20-year animal research veteran has
filed a lawsuit against the New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) -- the worlds
largest chimpanzee lab with over 6,000 chimps and monkeys -- asserting
illegal retaliation from NIRC after she blew the whistle on alleged animal
welfare and employee safety violations, In Defense of Animals (IDA)
announced today.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Narriman Fakier by attorney L. Clayton
Burgess (337-234-7573), asserts numerous violations of federal animal
welfare laws as well as potential criminal animal cruelty.  The suit alleges
that NIRC fired Ms. Fakier for whistleblowing, thus depriving her of her
free speech rights.  A copy of the suit is available at
http://newiberia.vivisectioninfo.org/NewIberiaWhistleblowerLawsuit.pdf

The suit states that Ms. Fakier was fired after protesting a plan to place
ten toddler chimpanzees in isolation while they were experimented upon.  She
also objected to the use of a chimpanzee who had never recovered from prior
research in a new study that ended up killing him, and raised questions
about the deaths of monkeys from exposure due to insufficient heating in
their outdoor enclosures.  Ms. Fakier was shocked when chimpanzees were
deliberately burned with a cigarette lighter and scalded with hot water.
According to the suit, NIRC Director Thomas J. Rowell, DVM told Ms. Fakier
that if she didn't like the way NIRC operated, she should quit.

These allegations of reprehensible cruelty are shocking but unfortunately
not a surprise, said IDA president Elliot Katz, DVM. Negligence, abuse and
profound suffering seem to be inherent in the secretive world of federally
funded chimpanzee research.

Katz recalled the ten-year controversy over the federally supported Coulston
Foundation in
New Mexico , in which dozens of chimpanzees died in a lab that
was formally charged four times by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
rampant Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violations.  He also pointed to the pending
criminal animal cruelty charges against Charles River Laboratories, the
federal contractor operating the Alamogordo Primate Facility (APF), a
chimpanzee lab in
New Mexico owned by the National Institutes of Health; see
http://NIHchimpcruelty.com

NIRC Director Thomas J. Rowell also sits on the advisory committee that
oversees Charles Rivers operation of the APF.

Fakiers suit also alleges that NIRC violated the whistleblower protection
provision of the AWA.  According to the lawsuit, the USDA, which enforces
the AWA, has opened an official investigation into Ms. Fakier's claims.  IDA
said that it will press the USDA for a full investigation of the matter, and
reiterated its call for a permanent ban on chimpanzee experimentation.

We applaud Ms. Fakier's courage in exposing the cruelty of chimpanzee
research,  Katz concluded.

IDA is an international animal advocacy and rescue organization based in
Mill Valley , CA .  The group's investigations have made history by leading to
the criminal animal cruelty charges filed against
Charles River Laboratories
in September 2004 as well as the closure of The Coulston Foundation primate
testing lab in 2002.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=611488

February 15. 2005

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