Day: July 1, 1993

Guest column: Breeding regulation, not moratoriums by Petra Murray

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:

A moratorium on the breeding of
dogs and cats may initially seem to be an
easy and effective solution for companion
animal overpopulation. However, if we
think beyond a moratorium we will come up
with an even more precise and effective
solution––albeit not the only solution.
A moratorium refers to a tempo-
rary cessation of activity, and therein lies
part of the reason that a moratorium will not
be the answer to pet overpopulation.
To be sure, good breeders should
pause for a week or two or a month or more
to become educated about overpopulation.
They should visit their local pounds and
shelters and look at the homeless animals.

Read more

Letters [July/Aug 1993]

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:

Breeding ordinances
As an animal control officer, I am impressed
by the emphasis on accuracy your publications demon-
strate. Your May article on overpopulation legislation
quite correctly avoided a mistake that San Mateo
County and Denver seem to have made, namely com-
bining a broad-based neutering requirement with differ-
ential licensing fees. To determine what license fee to
charge, the prospective licensee must be asked if the
animal in question is surgically sterilized. An honest
answer may be a confession of unlawful possession of a
fertile animal, which may explain the alleged drop in
license revenue in San Mateo County. Additionally,
courts may rule that the question cannot be asked if it
compels self-incrimination. I am told that Hayes v. U.S.
(1968) contains a ruling that convicted felons cannot be
compelled to register their guns, since such registration
would incriminate them on an unlawful possession
charge. If so, similar reasoning would seem to apply to
mandatory sterilization.

Read more

Editorial: No place for a saint

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:

Almost every day we hear from an animal rescuer in desperate trouble. Today it
was an elderly woman who had to relocate, and couldn’t take 50 feral cats she’d been feed-
ing with her. Only a handful of the females had been neutered; she lacked the funds to fix
the rest. She wanted us to recommend a shelter that could take them all in, guarantee they
would be socialized, and see to it that they were adopted into good homes.
“I don’t believe in euthanasia,” she warned us.
A few days ago there was the woman who’d purchased a farm and kennel with the
idea that the kenneling operation would support an all-species no-kill sanctuary. She got as
far as obtaining nonprofit status and acquiring a menagerie of 15 dogs, 14 cats, and 150
chickens, ducks, geese, and guinea hens before discovering that her income couldn’t come
close to meeting the mortgage payments. “All I need is $150,000,” she begged. “But it’s
coming down to where I have no choice but to put the animals down, and I know that when
I do, I will have a stroke and die.”

Editorial: You get more flies with honey than vinegar

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:

“We appeal once again for stronger ordinances for companion animals,” the
address to the city council began. “It looks as if more will be killed this year than last year.”
So far, so good: a succinct statement of the problem by a humane group with an estab-
lished record of accomplishment. The councillors were at attention, awaiting the statistics
and the proposed solution. But instead the humane society director mounted a figurative
pulpit, her voice rising to fill the room.
“Deciding that death for other beings is preferable to a risk-filled life is not
euthanasia in its traditional form,” she lectured, “but rather a lethal manifestation of
speciesism that projects our own fears and values onto another species.” As the perplexed
council members glanced at each other and scratched their heads, she raised her voice
another decibel and continued. “Mass killing manages an animal control problem for soci-
ety, but only a morally bankrupt community would continue to participate in such institu-
tionalized slaughter. Humane euthanasia may be indeed the lesser of evils facing aban-
doned animals in a hostile world, but it is still an evil. Instead of confronting the sources of
injustice, as represented by public ignorance, apathy, and cruelty, we have chosen to
punish the victims. Our city shelter is not much more than a killing machine.”
And then, as her supporters climbed up on their chairs to cheer, she asked for
$30,000.

Read more

Alaska resumes wolf killing; SUES FRIENDS OF ANIMALS FOR CALLING TOURISM BOYCOTT

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:

FAIRBANKS, Alaska––As
many as 450 Alaskan wolves will be
trapped, snared, and shot during the next
three winters to make more moose and
caribou available to hunters, under pro-
posals adopted July 1 by the Alaska
Board of Game.
ANIMAL PEOPLE waited to
go to press until the Board of Game deci-
sion became final—a week after the nor-
mal deadline––because of the signal
importance of the wolf issue in the ongo-
ing clash between ecology-based and
hunter-driven philosophies of conserva-
tion. The board was expected to revive
the wolf control strategy scrapped last
winter under threat of a tourism boycott,
but the details were obscured in a blizzard
of 92 wolf management proposals on the
summer meeting agenda, two of them
from the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game and many others from influential
hunting associations.

Read more

Supreme Court rules: Animal sacrifice ban overturned; VERDICT DOES NOT AFFECT ANTICRUELTY LAWS

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:

WASHINGTON D.C.––Anticruelty laws were unaffected by a June 11 United States
Supreme Court verdict that overturned a ban on animal sacrifice imposed in 1987 by the city of
Hialeah, Florida. The Supreme Court unanimously held that although governments do have the
authority to enforce prohibitions on cruelty, the keeping of livestock, and violations of zoning,
the set of six ordinances enacted in Hialeah were unconstitutional because they were adopted in

Read more

Supreme Court did not okay animal sacrifice

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:
  
by Gary L. Francione and Anna E. Charlton
Animal Rights Law Center
   
On June 11, 1993, the Supreme Court issued its decision  concerning animal sacrifice in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. The next day, most major newspapers carried headlines proclaiming that the Court had held that animal sacrifice is protected by the First Amendment freedom of religion clause. Typical of those proclamations was the one splashed across the entire front cover of New York Newsday: “Top Court OKs Animal Sacrifice.” Reading the comments of major humane organizations in reaction to the decision, including those such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which have the police power to stop the infliction of cruelty on animals, we have been distressed to realize that the decision has been read far too broadly, and that
there is the mistaken impression that humane officers are now powerless to stop the brutalities of animal sacrifice. The Court’s opinion in Lukumi was somewhat convoluted and was confused by current disagreement among Justices concerning how the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion should be interpreted. In light of these misunderstandings, we have offered the resources of the Animal Rights Law Center to assist municipalities and concerned individuals to assess their options for working to protect animals from sacrifice.

Read more

Help stop roadkills

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July/August 1993:

DERRY, N.H., CHARLOTTE, Vt., and
SHUSHAN, N.Y.––You too can help prevent roadkills, by
taking a copy of the survey form on page 7 of this issue with
you the next time you go walking.
Every roadkill you record will help in a concerted
effort to identify the characteristics of “killing zones” that
attract multiple roadkills, and help as well to develop a
defensive defensive driving curriculum that could save mil-
lions of animal lives.
Two parallel but cooperating teams are collecting
roadkill observations: a nationwide network of middle
school students assembled by environmental science teacher
Brewster Bartlett of Pinkerton Academy in Derry, New
Hampshire, and the readers of Country Life magazine and
ANIMAL PEOPLE.

Read more

NEW DIRECTION FOR AMERICANS FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS ––OR MORE OF THE SAME?

Leave a comment

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 1993:

Americans for Medical Progress has posted a reward of $5,000 for information leading to the arrest
and conviction of whoever vandalized the homes and cars of five federally funded researchers on April 28. Although the names of the researchers were not officially disclosed, one is believed to be Sharon Juliano, whose experiments on cats have been subject of numerous protests held in front of her home and elsewhere in her neighborhood.
AMP was founded by three executives of U.S. Surgical Corporation, specifically to attack the animal
rights movement––and U.S. Surgical, whose laboratory use of dogs has been target of annual demonstrations by Friends of Animals for 13 years, donated $980,000 of the $985,000 AMP raised in 1991. (1992 financial data isn’t yet available.) However, AMP refrained from any mention of animal issues in a May 14 full-page ad in The New York Times, which depicted Marie Curie and suggested that the purpose of the organization is to “bring the story of medical science––and medical heroes––to young Americans.”

Read more

1 2 3 4