LETTERS [Dec. 1993]
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, December 1993:
Vegetarians
Ann Landers recently
wrote as her “Gem of the Day” that
“The happiest person in the grocery
store is the vegetarian looking at the
prices in the meat department.” I
couldn’t resist responding that the
saddest person in the grocery store is
the vegetarain agonizing over all the
dead bodies in the meat department
and the suffering the animals went
through before their remains were
wrapped for sale.
I am now age 69. I have
been a vegetarian since 11, for ethi-
cal reasons.
––Marion Friedman
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
We profiled Friedman’s
conversion to vegetarianism, as a
resident of a Depression-era
orphanage, in our December 1992
issue.
Fur
The fur season is
upon us. I have prepared
an antifur action kit includ-
ing a listing of mail order
catalogs carrying fur items,
tips on antifur activities,
lists of groups offering
antifur campaign items,
etc. I am offering this
material free and am asking
for a long SASE to help
defray postage costs.
––Barbara Bonsignore
New Hampshire Animal
Rights League
8 Hutchins Street
Concord, NH 03301
Psychics
You have a won-
derfully informative news-
paper, and some of your
editorial comments are
impressively thoughtful.
However, do you
really believe that an ad for
a ‘900’ telephone service,
at almost $3 per minute,
promising to give psychic
help to “Discover what’s
ailing your furry friend,” is
representative of care about
animals, or even care
about being humane?
This sounds like
financial exploitation of
your readers (I hope most
are too alert to respond to
the ad!), and also unfair to
the animals whose ailments
are to be diagnosed by the
distant phone operators.
Again, I find
your newspaper in general
to be very praiseworthy,
but I do wish you’d recon-
sider whether an ad like
this belongs in your paper.
––Bernard Springer
Des Plaines, Illinois
The ad (in our
November issue) accurately
described the service
offered and the price of it.
While we will not knowing –
ly publish misleading
advertisements, we trust
our readers to render intel –
ligent value judgements
when offered accurate fac –
tual information.
Group finances
I consider your publication
an excellent source of information
on which animal groups are living
up to their promises. Due to space
and other limitations, you obviously
can’t carry information in detailed
form on every animal protection
group in every issue. I have a sug-
gestion. I believe it would be espe-
cially useful if you had a regular col-
umn or chart in ANIMAL PEOPLE
surveying all of the groups. You
could summarize the goals, finan-
cial information, and results of each
group’s work. You might even rate
each group or state your opinion on
which ones would be worth donating
money to. I certainly would appreci-
ate this, and expect many other
readers would, too.
––Arlen Grossman
Monterey, California
Our fourth annual finan –
cial resume of the 50 leading animal
protection groups begins on page
11. We haven’t found a way to
objectively assess the results of each
group’s activity.
Purina
I was quite shocked to see
a hunting show called Bill Jordan’s
Real Tree Outdoors on the TNN
cable network on Sunday morning.
A buck was killed with a bow and
arrow by a hunter who sat up in a
blind for three days. Amazing what
these guys will do. Anyway, this
show is sponsored in part by Purina,
and I feel they should be sent a mes-
sage. Also on this segment were
children being taught to hunt. Might
ANIMAL PEOPLE consider listing
this information and call for a boy-
cott of Purina products?
––Karen Benzel
Alameda, California
Purina has already been
under boycott by at least five nation –
al groups and several regional
humane societies since 1990, for
promoting coonhunting field trials,
which in turn directly boost coon –
hunting even though raccons are not
actually chased by dogs in the for –
mal competitions. Clearly the firm
values coonhunters’ patronage more
than ours.
Police shooting
Re a November 11 item in
my local newspaper about police
officers in Irvine, California, shoot-
ing a cow who was on the San Diego
Freeway 43 times, are police so
poorly trained or was this poor ani-
mal used for target practice?
––Andi Sandstrom
Mountain View, California
We don’t know, but if it
was target practice, these guys are
in trouble when they meet someone
who shoots back. Either way, they
should be in trouble now for shoot –
ing up the freeway for 20 minutes.
We understand they were trained at
the same academy that trained the
former Los Angeles police officers
who clubbed Rodney King more than
80 times while arresting him for
allegedly running a red light.
Certainly the cow was a traffic haz –
ard; equally certainly, anyone with
an apple should have been able to
lead her to safety––and where was
the local animal control depart –
ment?
Fan mail
I was shocked to see in
your November issue that your guest
columnist for the third time in six
months was Margaret Anne Cleek. I
live in Sacramento and have seen
and heard Cleek. We animal
activists tried to get a mandatory
neutering ordinance passed. Cleek
was instrumental in defeating it.
Not too long ago you had
a favorable article about an organi-
zation that condones animal
research. In November, your lead
feature was about seeing-eye dogs.
These dogs are bred by breeders
specifically for training as seeing-
eye dogs while hundreds of thou-
sands of puppies are killed in pounds
and shelters. You seem to favor
breeding and research. You certain-
ly give them plenty of room to
advertise their views.
Please print this letter. I
want to be sure that people know
Cleek is not in any way connected
with animal rights activists in the
Sacramento area..
––Doris Spiegel
Sacramento, California
The Editor is corrupt, stupid, and bitter––and his friends are worse
As an animal rights
activist and vegan for the past five
years, I have spent the last two
years working with welfarists and
serving on the board of a local ani-
mal shelter. While it’s been an
extremely frustrating experience,
I’m pleased at some of the accom-
plishments that have come out of my
efforts. I’ve also learned a lot.
When our board was approached by
the North Shore Animal League to
be a supplier of puppies, I
researched the organization and
found few redeeming features.
However, I’m not surprised that you
decided to say a few good words
about them in exchange for their
full-page ads. Animal rights
activists can certainly find them-
selves in the company of strange
bedfellows, which we all have
learned when tryng to raise money.
What is far more offensive
than your promoting NSAL is how
you have become so embittered
from your previous experiences that
you can extoll the virtues of the
executives at NSAL and continually
take potshots at hardworking, dedi-
cated movement activists like Ingrid
Newkirk, Wayne Pacelle, and oth-
ers. I don’t always agree with
PETA, the Fund, or other animal
rights groups, but I know their
hearts are in the right place, and
they are truly “fighting the good
fight,” as you put it. I wish you
were better able to keep things in
perspective and remember who’s
working hard for all the animals.
Well, it’s 6:30 p.m. and
time for a little dinner. While you,
I, Wayne, Ingrid and other activists
sit down to a simple, nonviolent
meal, I wish you all happiness and
peace. I only hope that the execu-
tives at NSAL with their six-figure
incomes choke on their veal, beef,
chicken, pate ́, and whatever other
dead animals you have helped to put
on their plates.
––Stewart David
Asheville, North Carolina
The corrupt, stupid, bitter Editor responds:
We are journalists, not
animal rights activists. As a jour –
nalist, I was among the first, six
years ago, to publish allegations
from other Long Island humane
groups that the North Shore Animal
League’s aggressive adoption pro –
motions were increasing pet over –
population. Since NSAL policy at
that time was not to respond to crit –
ics, I was left with a one-sided
story, which I found professionally
unsatisfactory, although I did quote
then-American SPCA president John
Kullberg in defense of NSAL. While
NSAL critics alleged that Kullberg
had been “bought” by the donations
NSAL provides to the ASPCA in
return for adopting out more than
5,000 animals a year from the
ASPCA shelters, one need only look
at the NSAL and ASPCA fundraising
patterns to see that NSAL competi –
tion for the greater New York chari –
table dollar was and is easily costing
the ASPCA a far greater amount.
My first article on NSAL
has been reprinted, amplified, and
paraphrased by NSAL critics ever
since, usually with my name, the
dates of the complaints, and
Kullberg’s response deleted.
Meanwhile, some of the leading
critics have severely compromised
their credibility––I’ve even caught
one altering veterinary records to
implicate NSAL in matters it had
nothing to do with.
In the interim, I discov –
ered through my annual audits of
animal protection organization tax
records that NSAL for some years
had been quietly paying for neuter –
ing more dogs and cats––many times
over––than all of the other national
groups put together. I also discov –
ered through my ongoing analysis of
shelter intake and euthanasia statis –
tics that pet overpopulation has
markedly decreased not only on
Long Island but also in more than 30
other communities whose major
shelters belong to the NSAL shelter
assistance program. The NSAL
approach i s unconventional; it is
also demonstrably effective.
I re-examined the cases
for and against NSAL last March, to
belatedly set the record straight. I
then intensively probed another
round of nasty allegations, this time
directed at attorney John Stevenson,
who succeeded David Ganz as NSAL
president in April. Although NSAL
had recently become sponsor of the
Spay/USA low-cost neutering pro –
gram and wanted to advertise it, I
held off any discussion of the matter
until extensive review of court docu –
ments and interviews with all the
principals in the major cases involv –
ing him convinced me, as I reported
in May, that Stevenson, like NSAL,
is a class act who has been viciously
slandered by individuals with signif –
icant ulterior motives.
NSAL advertised for the
first time in June, to promote the
Spay/USA annual conference. Only
after that ad brought positive results
did NSAL enter into a longterm
advertising contract with us. Other
organizations with opposing philoso –
phies are equally welcome to adver –
tise; many have, and at least one of
them also has a longterm contract.
Incidentally, Stevenson is
a near-vegetarian and a tofu enthusi –
ast. We’ve been pleased to teach him
some of his favorite recipes.
Plus he’s cheap
You devote too much
time and space to report negatively
on animal rights organizations. As
an animal rights activist of 10
years and a business person, I rec-
ognize the right of people to earn
salaries. What might be an exorbi-
tant salary to you might not be
considered exorbitant by others.
How much does the head of the
National Rifle Association make?
I would not know––you should
print it, so activists would under-
stand what we are up against. If
animal-related jobs paid a bit more
money, there would be a larger
circle of people to choose from to
operate organizations.
Also, I was appalled by
the guest column “Don’t Call Me a
Pimp.” Two full pages were used
so this person could justify her
method of dog breeding. While I
recognize the need to hear the
other side, I would rather have
seen two full pages of articles
addressing the many problems of
grassroots all-volunteer groups.
––Mary Jo McClain
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
If you read ANIMAL
PEOPLE as thoroughly as you
denounce it, you’d know that NRA
head Wayne Lapierre Jr. made
$125,316 in 1991, when the NRA
paid three six-figure salaries. We
reported them all, along with the
animal protection group salaries,
in December 1992. We have not
reported NRA salaries in this issue
only because according to the
offices that supply copies of tax
documents to us, at deadline the
NRA still hadn’t filed its 1992 IRS
Form 990.
Incidentally, we pub –
lished 21 features on volunteers
and volunteer groups in our first
12 issues.
Rabid hunters
Our local papers are full of advice on how hunters can recog-
nize rabid deer, which could save both human and deer lives this hunting
season, but what we really need is advice on how the rest of us can rec-
ognize rabid hunters. Lookalike symptoms can be seriously confusing.
For instance, the hunter who appears in broad daylight instead of before
dawn or after dusk may simply have a burned-out jacking lantern. The
hunter who appears confused and disoriented is probably just pretending
he doesn’t know he’s trespassing on posted land, or in some cases that
he didn’t know there was a house nearby when he blew out the front win-
dow and the brains of the occupants, whom he mistook for (pick one) a
groundchuck, a ruffed grouse, or a game warden. The hunter who
drools excessively is most often simply trying to chew tobacco and boast
of his kills at the same time. The hunter who exhibits fear of water will
tell you straight out that deer run away from the scent of soap and a
washrag, but don’t mind body odor that would knock a buzzard off a gut
wagon, and he knows it’s true because the last deer he shot at got within
a whole half mile of him downwind (and he would have hit it, too, he’ll
add, except that a schoolbus crossed between them.) Even the hunter
who can’t swallow water will down a six-pack just fine, and the hunter
who’s frothing at the mouth usually just did.
Appreciating your attention to this matter,
––Tasha Shepherd
Salem, New York
Editor’s note: this letter describes actual recent hunting accidents.
Deer overpopulation
As a hunter myself, I am
opposed to the idea of stopping
hunters from hunting at all. I do
agree that wildlife management
agencies have unrealistic expecta-
tions in many of their regulations.
The goal of achieving “maximum
sustainable yield” by just hunting
bucks needs to be abandoned. Since
I hunt only animals I know I will eat,
don’t hang heads on my walls, and
don’t consider the trip a failure if I
don’t make a kill, hunting does or
cow elk is a perfectly acceptable
population control measure for me
where it can be done safely.
(Colorado Division of Wildlife regu-
lations have been encouraging elk
overpopulation for many years now.)
––Ron Burch
Animal Control Officer
Adams County, Colorado
San Francisco’s proposed euthanasia ban
On its face there is nothing
wrong and everything right with the
proposed San Francisco ordinance to
restrict euthanasia. A proposal to
insure that highly adoptable animals
are placed is welcome, but let’s look
at how it is packaged.
Only 222 of the 6,314 ani-
mals killed in San Francisco are
being defined as “adoptable,” or
immediately placeable, and once
those animals are placed––Eureka!
––there will no longer be an over-
population problem.
The very existence of
unwanted animals, both those labled
“adoptable” and those labeled
“unadoptable” or more difficult to
place are evidence of the problem. If
the solution is linked to the ability to
place healthy, sound, attractive ani-
mals in homes, then shelters are sim-
ply pet marketers. Instead, we must
work to sell an ethic, not just a pet,
that includes an abiding compassion
and respect for all living things.
In Marin, we have not
euthanized any healthy, sound ani-
mals for years, but we are not cele-
brating, as we still euthanize 2,800
animals a year.
––Diane Allevato
Executive Director
Marin County Humane Society
San Rafael, California
San Francisco SPCA exec –
utive director Richard Avanzino’s
proposal included placing rather
than euthanizing many of the ani –
mals in the “more difficult” category.
At deadline, Avanzino told us that
his proposal has now been achieved
by contract with the San Francisco
animal control department, rather
than by municipal ordinance. We’ll
be eager to see the results.
The Marin County euth-
anasia rate per capita is about 50%
higher than the rate in San
Francisco, but the rate of pet own –
ership may also be higher.
She loves us, yeah, yeah, yeah!
Thank you for your very informative publica-
tion. Your thorough and multi-angled approach to ani-
mal issues is refreshing and thought-provoking. You
obviously devote much time and energy to carefully
presenting often very controversial material. I most
enjoy your intelligent editorials and guest columns of
similar caliber, such as those by Margaret Anne Cleek.
What a nice change from the one-sided, dogmatic
approach of some animal activist publications. You
show that these issues are not black-and-white or good
vs. evil, but involve many viewpoints and understand-
ings, which help us to come to positive solutions to
complex problems.
At times your articles go beyond human atti-
tudes and concerns and reflect insight into the animals’
points of view, which frequently duplicates what I have
discovered from the animals themselves in my years of
communicating with thousands of animals and their
people. Thank you again for your service.
––Penelope Smith
Animal Communication Specialist
Pegasus Publications
Point Reyes, California
Veterinary chiropractic debate
Thank you for sending me
the veterinary edition of A N I M A L
PEOPLE. I have developed a tech-
nology called Veterinary Orthopedic
Manipulation, whereby animals’
neurological disease phenomena can
be healed and treated in a nonsurgi-
cal fashion. VOM™ is a hybrid of
human chiropractic and veterinary
medicines. With this technology we
are able to handle disease phenome-
na such as paralysis, hip displasia,
enteric disease, urinary tract dis-
ease, and many other causes of
lameness, discomfort, and debilita-
tion. The success rate is 95%.
I wish I were writing this
letter on a more positive note, but I
have recently come under attack
from the Veterinary Board of
Governors for practicing VOM™.
Some veterinary surgeons with their
invasive approach to spinal disease
would like to see this technology
squelched. A very similar scene has
been playing between the American
Chiropractic Association and the
American Medical Association over
the last 50 years.
Currently in the State of
Washington the chiropractic board
will not let chiropractors adjust ani-
mals, as they would be practicing
veterinary medicine, and the
Veterinary Board is trying to say a
veterinarian can’t adjust an animal
because that’s practicing chiroprac-
tic. Well then, who c a n a d j u s t
them?
We have hundreds of suc-
cessful cases on file, yet the State of
Washington is now attempting to
make me lose the ability to practice
any veterinary medicine.
––William Inman, BS, BS, DVM
Lake City Animal Hospital
Seattle, WA 98125
The Editor inquired into
Dr. Inman’s allegations. “Dr. Inman
is currently being investigated by the
Washington State Veterinary Board
of Governors,” Washington State
Veterinary Medical Association
executive vice president Sandra
Bertelsen informed us, “and it
would be inappropriate for me to
comment. There may be other vet-
erinarians who practice chiropractic
techniques in the treatment of ani-
mals,” she continued, “but there is
no formal protocol or certification
process.”
According to the American
Veterinary Medical Association
guidelines on alternate therapies,
referrals for chiropractic treatment
“must be made to a licensed chiro-
practor and in conformance with that
state’s veterinary practice act. Of the
12 certified chiropractic colleges
consulted, all stated that they did
not offer instruction in disease pat-
terns and anatomy of animals.”
Commented AVMA assis –
tant director of scientific activities
Dr. John Boyce, DVM, Ph.D., “We
are not privy to the details of this
case, nor does the AVMA generally
become involved in disputes
between veterinarians and licensing
agencies. It is our opinion that a vet-
erinarian should be free to use those
therapeutic techniques and proce-
dures with which he or she is com-
fortable, as long as they do not
adversely affect the health or well-
being of the animal patient.
Certainly many veterinarians use a
variety of alternative approaches to
therapy. Although scientific docu-
mentation of the effectiveness and
safety of these unconventional tech-
niques is often lacking, many prac-
titicioners are convinced that they
work well at least some of the time.
With respect to chiropractic, it is
our understanding that veterinarians
are generally free to use these tech-
niques on animals, but not people.
Chiropractors may or may not be
allowed to work on animals,
depending on the provisions of the
practice acts in the individual state.
We are not familiar with VOM™.”
We obtained the statement
of charges against Dr. Inman. He is
accused of treating a cat for an
alleged back injury with drugs and
surgery, who in fact had a circulato –
ry problem known to his owner, and
of misrepresenting the results of
treatment that crippled the cat; of
failing to perform proper diagnostic
procedure in treating two dogs with
inappropriate drugs; of failing to
discover sponges left inside a dog by
another veterinarian after an emer –
gency spay, despite treating the dog
11 times in 14 months for related
conditions; of diagnosing mutually
exclusive conditions and “hairball
hepatitis,” an unrecognized ailment,
in a cat who was then treated with
inappropriate drugs; and of subject –
ing at least four cats and five dogs to
other “inappropriate and/or possibly
harmful” treatment in response to
potentially life-threatening condi –
tions.
More folks like us
Great job with your
October editorial, “Fighting the
good fight.” Maybe some people
will read it––I sure hope so!
––Phil Arkow
Executive Director
Peggy Adams Animal Rescue Lg.
West Palm Beach, Florida
Your November editori-
al, “When more pets don’t help,”
was especially poignant to read
just before a major traditional fam-
ily holiday, which many of us in
shelter work will spend without
family. I copied it for our staff,
who were just getting over the
shock of having read Roseland‘s
Sizzle the day before. It upset
them badly because they didn’t
know anything about the source. I
showed them your articles about it
and simply said the author was a
hate-mongering bitch with more
money than brains.
––Vicky Crosetti
Executive Director
Knoxville County Humane Soc.
Knoxville, Tennessee
NEAVS
We’re writing in response
to the letter and editorial comment in
your November issue about our dis-
missal from the New England Anti-
Vivisection Society. Though we
find it repugnant even to respond to
the unsubstantiated rumor you report
about any of us having stolen money
from NEAVS, we do of course cate-
gorically deny it. We would ask the
many activists who know us from
our years at NEAVS and before to
think about such an accusation, or
rumor, or whatever it is in the con-
text of what they know about us.
(Why did you even print it without a
name attached? You yourself said
how flimsy it was! Oh well…)
What matters to us is what
we did do while we were at NEAVS.
The Boston University Free Press
reported in September that cat-
maiming experiments exposed by
NEAVS had been discontinued.
That campaign was conceived and
implemented by the staff who were
fired, as the first in a planned series
of attacks on the local and regional
vivisection brotherhood. We were
striving to really be the New
England Anti-Vivisection Society.
As your readers may recall
from the short summary given to
ANIMAL PEOPLE by Rebecca
Taksel in your September issue,
NEAVS forced her resignation and
summarily dismissed the outreach
and membership departments, leav-
ing the education department and the
legislative office in Washington
D.C. Pat Butterfield, head of
NEAVS’ Ethical Science Education
Coalition (which she cofounded as a
volunteer in 1991), resigned from
NEAVS the day the others were dis-
missed.
The present executive
director, Jon Schottland, never par-
ticipated in the Boston University
campaign, and he told one NEAVS
member that under his direction the
organization will not engage in
“chanting in the streets.” His com-
ment disparages not only the efforts
of dismissed staffers, but also every
grassroots protest group.
We hope the “insiders” at
NEAVS who have personally
attacked us will cease, and focus
instead on whatever activities the
organization still conducts.
––Pat Butterfield,
Joan McCafferty, Rebecca Taksel,
Scott Van Valkenburg, Laura Yanne
Boston, Massachusetts
Roger Troen defends “Sizzle” editor
I’m not surprised to see
Joan Dahlberg making waves
nationally with her Roseland’s Sizzle
[a tabloid attack on humane soci –
eties circulated through pet stores,
whose advertisers mostly claim to
have been defrauded, which we
exposed in our October and
November issues––ed. note].
Her greatest contribution
to the animals in Oregon was made
in the late 1970s, as she nearly sin-
gle-handedly abolished the damn-
able decompression chambers in
Oregon, beginning with Multnomah
County when Mike Burgwyn was
director of its shelter. Her inspira-
tion led me to get elected to the
Multnomah County Citizen’s
Congress, which led to the appoint-
ment of a county animal control
advisory committee. As a member
of that committee, I can tell you
there have been some changes made
since Mr. Burgwyn was there.
Far before Dahlberg’s
time, during Burgwyn’s tenure, the
concept of handling each animal for
individual euthanasia was fought as
impractical by those using the mass-
killing machines. Her dauntless
research and campaigning paid off
and sodium pentobarbital is now the
standard. It would be hard to find
anyone who would admit fighting
her on this issue.
More recently, she virtu-
ally singlehandedly brought the
Portland Park Bureau to the realiza-
tion they did not have to poison and
drain Portland’s Laurelhurst Lake.
She found a company in the mid-
west that installed large aerating
pumps disguised as rock islands.
The fish, ducks, and geese were
saved, and she did it by intercepting
the poisoners in the early hours of a
freezing December day, with court
papers she had obtained during the
night. Had her partner (myself) pre-
vailed in convincing her to come
back at 8 a.m., the dirty work would
have been done.
She and I have had violent
disagreements, but my respect for
her is immense. She was among the
very first to support me during my
trial [Troen was convicted of bur –
glary, theft, and conspiracy on
January 21, 1988, for receiving
135 animals stolen from the
University of Oregon in Eugene dur –
ing an October 1986 raid by the
Animal Liberation Front. He was
ordered to pay $34,913 restitution.]
She replaced my nearly two weeks
of lost work income. She also con-
tributed to my restitution fund.
The judge in my case told
me at sentencing that if I thought
others supported this kind of action
and would pay my restitution for me,
I should not hold my breath. To
date, others have contributed nearly
$10,000.
I appreciate your journal-
ism and read every word.
––Roger Troen
Portland, Oregon
Troen recently formed a
new group, Rat Allies, at POB
3453, Portland, OR 97208, “to
take up the slack created when the
Rodent Alliance for Tolerance for
some reason disappeared from the
scene.”
The Willy deal
In your October issue you reported that the
Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums was
rushing to the rescue of Keiko, the orca star of the hit
film Free Willy. Quite rightly you reported that Keiko is
suffering due to the inadequate conditions he is housed in,
but I am afraid the report does not tell all the truth.
The owners of Keiko, El Nuevo Reino
Aventura, have been trying to get assistance from
AMMPA and some of its individual members for over
two years now. It seems a certain U.S. park was interest-
ed in buying Keiko, but not at the price ENRA wanted.
In fact, it was a coalition of environmental and cetacean
groups that finally arranged for a veterinarian to go and
visit Keiko and make recommendations for his future.
Based on the vet’s report, the groups suggested a two-
year-plus rehabilitation and possible release program to
Keiko’s owners, which they accepted as the best possible
future for him. As part of that agreement, the Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society and a team of specialists
headed by Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale
Research recently visited Iceland [where Keiko was cap –
tured in 1985] to discuss the possibility of carrying out
the scientific studies that would be necessary before any
such release could take place.
Unknown to the groups, who were acting in
good faith, AMMPA, on realizing that the release of an
orca was now a real possibility, quickly dispatched an
executive jet to Mexico City to bid for Keiko. Whatever
was offered was enough for ENRA to renege on their
original agreement and side with the rest of the captivity
industry. AMMPA and its members thus blocked a valid
conservation program and condemned Keiko to a contin-
ued life of subservient tricks and coercion.
The captivity industry has once again shown it
will do anything to protect investments, even stopping
Keiko from having the chance to go home.
––Chris Stroud
Campaigns Manager
Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society
Avon, England
AMMPA plans to improve the water quality at
Keiko’s present facility, treat him for a skin infection dur –
ing the next six to 12 months, depending upon how quick –
ly he responds, and then relocate him to join a group of
captive orcas at one of the Sea World marine parks.
In a similar case, Sea World on November 21
applied to import a 15-year-old orca named Ulysses from
the Barcelona Zoo, who had also been considered a
prime candidate for release.
Sea World didn’t respond to our request for
comment.
